The biggest error in The Bible [aka, by pretentious dickheads, "Biblia Sacra"]

[KarlMarx1989]

Doesn't it get annoying when you bring an inconsistency in Biblia Sacra to a priest or another religious official and they just find a way around it? The pastor that I debate with at the Presbyterian Church I visit every-so-often finds a way around everything I present to him. However, recently I presented one error to him that he still has yet to answer back about:

In the book of Acts (More specifically Acts 9:1-30 ), Luke documented that Sa'ul [aka, by all of you, "Paul"] went to Damascus to have the Nazarenian jews bound to Jerusalem but came to Jerusalem to see the apostles to join them. However, 'Paul' documented in Galatians [1:13-19] that he went to Damascus (as Luke said), but then went to Arabia, and returned to Damascus; then went to Jerusalem after three years to see Peter and James, but no one else.

This stumped David [name of pastor], he was searching through the whole book looking for answers to it; but found nothing. He eventually came up with a "I'm sure it's there" and "I will find it and get back to you" but he has yet to get back to me.

Comrades, this could be the beginning of the comprimise of Christianity's integrity. For the comrades who are against / fighting Christianity, this is a good place to start.

What do you all think of this?

[Raúl Duke]

No offense but first let me say this...

No one on this forum cares nor will adopt your use of "correct terms" such as "Biblia Sacra", etc over the more colloquial terms. Jacob Richter all the time makes up or brings up some terms, probably most of it invented or whatever, and due to this most people here probably ignore him (somewhat unfortunate) but also due to that it sometimes makes things harder to comprehend (which leads to being ignored. Sometimes I try to read what he says and it gets a bit rough to reach the point). In other words, don't make it a habit or you might end up like Richter.

I, like most people, like the use of simple language with the most widely used words/terms and see no reason why we should change.


This stumped David [name of pastor], he was searching through the whole book looking for answers to it; but found nothing. He eventually came up with a "I'm sure it's there" and "I will find it and get back to you" but he has yet to get back to me.

Comrades, this could be the beginning of the comprimise of Christianity's integrity.There are more inconsistencies and angles to argue against religion/christianities then that...in my opinion.

Why do you think that this detail could be the "beginning of the compromise of christianity's integrity?"

[spiltteeth]

We ought to stat a thread Christians VS Atheists, not to prove or disprove anything, just so at the end, whoever is the most logically consistent, gets a revleft cookie.

[KarlMarx1989]

I, like most people, like the use of simple language with the most widely used words/terms and see no reason why we should change.
Hey, I'm not making anyone change. In fact, I believe that each one of us have the freedom to call anything whatever we want. You could call it Globbous and I would not care. (By the way, that was off the top of my head.) I expect others to have the same tolerance of difference. Especially with this being a leftist forum...:glare:

There are more inconsistencies and angles to argue against religion/christianities then that...in my opinion.
I am well aware there are more. I have many on my list. However, David has found a way around each and every one of the other inconsistencies I have found in Biblia Sacra.

[9]

I expect others to have the same tolerance of difference. Especially with this being a leftist forum...:glare:

No, see, it isn't really a difference in the sense that you are implying.
If I signed on here and, as a lab technician's assistant at a hematology lab, started a thread on swine flu but instead of calling it "swine flu", I insisted on calling it (and the thread) "influenzavirus A, subtype H1N1, or what you people call 'Swine Flu'" and chose to make constant unnecessary references in the OP to granulocytes in the differential count, relative cell distributive width, and the hematocrit -- that would be more like what you're doing.
Or for an even better example, if someone started a thread about Woody Allen called "Allen Stewart Konigsberg: the Creative Genius" and insisted on referring to him by this name, to flaunt some shoddy air of sophistication. Really, it just comes across as absurdly pretentious, no offense.

[KarlMarx1989]

Ah, well see; the difference here is that I am using actual words. 'Bible' is not a real word. It became the title but the title in Latin was real words. That is why I use Biblia Sacra, because I am actually using words.

However, again; you all can call it whatever you want, I really don't care. It is because of things like the whole "swine flu" thing that I let people call it what they want. I like to present myself with intelligence. If you people want to use whatever else because it is easier, that is fine; the same point still gets across.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah, well see; the difference here is that I am using actual words. 'Bible' is not a real word.No, I'm pretty sure it is. You know, in English. Like 'London'. The difference being that it's shorter, and more commonly used. And, even better, it doesn't entail calling it holy every time you say its name when it's completely unnecessary.

[Luís Henrique]

Like 'London'.
You mean Londinium. "London" isn't a "real word".

KarlMarx1989, I really dislike your use of "Biblia Sacra" instead of Bible. It seems to imply that Christianism is somehow a Latin American thing.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What do you all think of this?
I think you are dealing with a particular brand of Christianism that takes the Bible literally. This variant of Christianism is probably important where you live, but not so much in a global perspective. If you talk to a Catholic priest, he well tell you something like "yes, there are inconsistencies there - while the Bible is inspired by God, it was written by common mortals, who had the ordinary problems of comprehension, lack of memory, and misunderstandings as anyone else". So I am sorry, but I don't see the whole thing unraveling because of these issues.

Luís Henrique

[Raúl Duke]

I really dislike your use of "Biblia Sacra" instead of Bible. It seems to imply that Christianism is somehow a Latin American thing.

I think the word Biblia Sacra comes from Latin; not Spanish.
Unless you are making a reference to the fact that most/virtually all of Latin-America is Catholic and I guess usually refer to their text in Latin.

[Raúl Duke]

We ought to stat a thread Christians VS Atheists, not to prove or disprove anything, just so at the end, whoever is the most logically consistent, gets a revleft cookie.

That's been done sooooo many times

Hell, the poster that many people know about but is no longer around (RS2K) has had a whole collection of threads (19 of them,usually titled "Communists Against Religion"; at least in his website) where he owned a bunch of religious people.

[Luís Henrique]

I think the word Biblia Sacra comes from Latin; not Spanish.
Unless you are making a reference to the fact that most/virtually all of Latin-America is Catholic and I guess usually refer to their text in Latin.

In Latin it would be Biblia sacra or Biblia sacrata (Biblia sacrata iuxta vulgatam versionem); in Castillian (and Portuguese) it is Biblia (Bíblia in Portuguese) sagrada or Biblia sacra.

Anyway the Latin version is - as the complete title shows - merely a translation (vulgatam versionem - "translation into common language"). And what would be the "original" version, if the book is a recollection of diverse manuscripts, some originally written in Hebraic, others in Greek? Septuaginta?

Luís Henrique

[KarlMarx1989]

The original is, of course, The Tanakh, and then the apostles of Imman-el added the "New Testament." With that added, it was named Biblia Sacra first.

[spiltteeth]

That's been done sooooo many times

Hell, the poster that many people know about but is no longer around (RS2K) has had a whole collection of threads (19 of them,usually titled "Communists Against Religion"; at least in his website) where he owned a bunch of religious people.

Oh, thanks, I'll look it up. Too bad he isn't around, I'd take him on.

Also, people need to leave Karlia Marxra 1989inius alone (or who you people call ...)

[scarletghoul]

Is est maioribus thread in terra (or, as you stupid people would say, 'this is the greatest thread in the land')

[Invincible Summer]

You already made a thread about this BIBLE (take that!) shit. You're being really pretentious in TWO threads now. At least contain this tripe in one thread.



EDIT: How fitting that my 666th post is sort of anti-Christian

[Raúl Duke]

Oh, thanks, I'll look it up. Too bad he isn't around, I'd take him on.

:lol:

Some religious posters think that Revleft has too much of an "anti-religion" culture but now isn't the same back when RS2K was around. Although TAT is still around, I'm not sure if he's that much into debating the religious.

[scarletghoul]

Anti-theism is really a waste of time for leftists. There are much more important things to be criticising, like capitalism.

[spiltteeth]

Yea, it's just that I know so many progressive liberal religious folk who I can never introduce to socialism because of its reputation of being intrinsically anti-theist. And a lot of religious feel patronized and disrespected by the Left.

It's too bad. As Marxist geographer David Harvey points out, there is less and less physical space for people to get together for protests or social causes.

So, most of the social change in America comes from the church, simply because they have a perfect meeting place to gather conveniently.Since most churches are to the right or even out right fascist, thats the social causes they fight for.
If only the left would extend a warm hand to Christians, we could make such a big difference. Hell, even Lenin tried to collaborate with an Orthodox priest, it's about real strategy, which is why he's one of the few people to ever pull off AND KEEP a revolutionary government.

[9]

^I agree with the last couple posts about anti-theism being a waste of time. Before I became interested in revolutionary politics, when I was still a "reformist socialist" (read: liberal) in my teenage years, I went on this huge crusade against religion. I'd come to the typical Bill Maher conclusion that religion was the root of all societal ills, and that religion was the only thing keeping us from an ideal society. I was completely misguided and basically, an idiot. I convinced my mother, who was only very mildly religious in the first place, that there was no God. Then her mother died, and she became severely depressed because she didn't know how to cope with the idea that her mother was alive one day and simply gone the next, no longer existing in any form. This was undoubtedly my fault.
I think the notion that we can snatch away from people the only thing left that gives them hope before offering a real, practical, tangible alternative is completely ridiculous.. And I don't see anything positive coming from it; it only engenders hostility toward revolutionary politics from religious people.

[KarlMarx1989]

How fitting that my 666th post is sort of anti-ChristianYes and a belief that that number is significant would require a belief in the christian god. The same goes for any satanist, for a belief in Satan ...

Revleft has too much of an "anti-religion" cultureI have noticed this. I should know, I am one of the anti-religious.

Anti-theism is really a waste of time for leftists.Yeah, even though there is a whole section about it; but you know,,,

So, most of the social change in America comes from the church, simply because they have a perfect meeting place to gather conveniently.Since most churches are to the right or even out right fascist, thats the social causes they fight for.*Siiiighhhhhh* Sad, but true. My friends and I don't really see the light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. Especially living in the town we reside in, where people do nothing but go to church. It is either that or sit around and smoke pot and methamphetamine all day.
(None of us do any of the three, by the way...)

[red cat]

.
If only the left would extend a warm hand to Christians, we could make such a big difference. Hell, even Lenin tried to collaborate with an Orthodox priest, it's about real strategy, which is why he's one of the few people to ever pull off AND KEEP a revolutionary government.

Can't comment about allying with priests etc.(which must have happened due to specific subjective conditions), but the way of dealing with the common Christian worker or peasant would be to encourage him to participate in class struggle and view the world in the light of Marxism.

[Jazzratt]

Yes and a belief that that number is significant would require a belief in the christian god. The same goes for any satanist, for a belief in Satan ...

With or without satan the concept of him (and his number) are still going to be culturally significant. Recognising this requires only a belief in christianity (which plainly exists) and not christian theology and/or christian theological entities (which are clearly bollocks). Also satanic philosophy is really weird, we have a few satanists lying around here and if you can hammer your way through their obtuse writings you'll understand there is more to it than sacrificing goats to the bad guy; it's still a steaming pile, but it doesn't necessarily include all the christian bells and whistles.

[Raúl Duke]

So, most of the social change in America comes from the church, simply because they have a perfect meeting place to gather conveniently.Since most churches are to the right or even out right fascist, thats the social causes they fight for.
If only the left would extend a warm hand to Christians, we could make such a big difference.

You do realize that the religious landscape is changing...studies and surveys show that the "none" are increasing in the 1st world and even in the U.S.
Plus the issue of anti-theism only pops up on revleft, since it's a theoretical discussion site;...in real-life that stuff is usually put-aside while a more moderate secularist stance is put forward.

Also, even if we did extend a "warm hand" to christians (whatever exactly that would entail) wouldn't eliminate, diminish, or stop the reactionary elements in that social group per se.

[Holden Caulfield]

With or without satan the concept of him (and his number) are still going to be culturally significant. Recognising this requires only a belief in christianity


pointless fact 666, should really have been 616, the early Christian numeric code for Nero, the Roman Emperor who kicked their arses.

Could be false, sounds good tho dont it.

[Invincible Summer]

Yes and a belief that that number is significant would require a belief in the christian god. The same goes for any satanist, for a belief in Satan ...

I'm not a Satanist and I don't believe in any god. I just made a comment that was based on the cultural notions surrounding the number 666. So there.

[spiltteeth]

You do realize that the religious landscape is changing...studies and surveys show that the "none" are increasing in the 1st world and even in the U.S.
Plus the issue of anti-theism only pops up on revleft, since it's a theoretical discussion site;...in real-life that stuff is usually put-aside while a more moderate secularist stance is put forward.

Also, even if we did extend a "warm hand" to christians (whatever exactly that would entail) wouldn't eliminate, diminish, or stop the reactionary elements in that social group per se.

Most Christians I know feel disrespected by progressives and liberals, let alone the real Left, and most Leftists look at me like 'Oh my, here's a delusional idiot' when I mention I'm a Christian.
There's a huge base of socialist Christians, bigger than most-not all-Leftist political groups, such as Sojourners, that will probably never seek out Rev theory, because of the perceived and actual hostility of the Left.

[Robert]

Especially living in the town we reside in, where people do nothing but go to church. It is either that or sit around and smoke pot and methamphetamine all day.Interesting observation.

Both groups, Eric Fromm would have said, are seeking to overcome estrangement, separateness, alone-ness. I believe it's a basic human want.

This is a great obstacle to the communist goal of eliminating religion. Many believers go to church out of habit, or for social reasons, or from an irrational fear of Hell. But others practice religion as a means of eliminating their sense of self and, ideally, experiencing bliss, Fromm's "orgiastic state." Politics doesn't come any where close to fulfilling that need. Sex works pretty well, too. Having sex in church, you might think, would be doubly delicious. but I wouldn't think that. I wouldn't even mention it.

The seriously devout, like humming Buddhists, rosary-praying Catholics (the ones who go to chapel at 5:30 A.M. daily), and chanting Krishnas, claim to achieve that orgiastic state. I believe them and don't want to take it away from them, no matter how "illogical" it is.

Orgasm without the risk of STD's or unwanted pregnancy.:thumbup1:

[KarlMarx1989]

I just made a comment that was based on the cultural notions surrounding the number 666.
OK, fair enough.