Is Polygamy Wrong?

[Secular Liberation]

It was already answered, circular balloonist. You guys are literalistic fundies who seem to seriously think that people always say/write just what they mean. Are you failing English class as your idols here did, when they were your age?

Once again, insults. I've read Adrift's so-called argument. Seems to me he's only helping Jim and Gary's case that the Bible was written by primitive men by stating the Bible used military exaggeration rather than historical thinking skills.

[Secular Liberation]

Been around quite a few pot smokers Circular Balloonist. They sure were not very impressive with their mental prowess (as you three morons keep proving).

So the fact that Carl Sagan and many other brilliant people smoked marijuana means nothing to you for the sake of you insulting people's intelligence?

[lilpixieofterror]

Not chronological snobbery nor is it racism. For someone so non-PC you seem to use it to your conservative religious advantage.

I'm not the one calling an entire group of people a bunch of names and thinking you're smarter than they are, due to nothing more than your own biasness and prejudice. How is that not chronological snobbery and racism? I don't know, but I guess the rules for you are different than the rules for those who are not on their hands and knees bowing before you. In reality, circular balloonist, you wouldn't survive a week there and you know what... I know I wouldn't either because you seem to fail to understand something quite simple. People today are not any smarter than they were thousands of years ago. People today simply have more time and technology to do things that go beyond their immediate survival. I don't need to know how to tan leather, churn butter, or prepare my meals from scratch so that means I have more time to do things that are not important to my immediate survival.

What's I'm saying is simple facts about how ancient people's understood the world in the 7th century (yes, 7th century, when most scholars outside your bubble believe they were written). If you read The Iliad and read the role of gods in the epic would you consider it anti-Greek racism to say the authors were misusing the events?

No, you're showing that you're a snob that looks down on others and pretends he's smarter and better due to the era in which he was born in. That is classic chronological snobbery and you're too stupid to notice it because you don't care. Anyway, what is 'my bubble' there circular balloonist? Let me guess, with your magical mind reading powers, you pretend that you know what I believe and think better than I do? Amazing how strong fundy atheism really is, but I see you keep missing the point because your black/white fundy thinking keeps getting in the way. Do tell, do you seriously think that even The Iliad is written in a literal manner and the author always met literally just what was written? Yes or no?

Of course not. You can say the same for the scripture that is used by the likes of you. It's also insane to believe those primitives knew more about literary symbolism than someone who's been to high school. Even Junior high school students would know more about different forms of literary resources than them. You're spinning a lot for your inbred belief system.

Inbread belief system? More of your hatred leaking out, eh circular balloonist? You really hate anybody who doesn't bow before you, but I'm not the one who seems to assume that people always mean just what they write and say and there's no such thing as figures of speech and non literal speech/writing. You three morons seem to fail to understand that simple reality. So you really are failing your English courses, right? Yep, once a moron, always a moron.

[lilpixieofterror]

So the fact that Carl Sagan and many other brilliant people smoked marijuana means nothing to you for the sake of you insulting people's intelligence?

Your logic:

1. These famous people smoked pot.
2. Therefore, people who smoke pot must be intelligent.

That's pretty stupid there circular balloonist, even for you. Some smart people also have done cocaine too. Therefore doing drugs must not effect your intelligence in the least bit, correct or are you starting with the assumption that smart people can't do stupid things?

[lilpixieofterror]

Once again, insults. I've read Adrift's so-called argument. Seems to me he's only helping Jim and Gary's case that the Bible was written by primitive men by stating the Bible used military exaggeration rather than historical thinking skills.

AKA you're an idiot that really is failing his high school English courses. So you're saying that standards of writing and recording to not change up, over time? So tell us moron, what makes modern historical writing superior to old ones or do you seriously think that modern historians don't have their own biasness and prejudices too?

[Secular Liberation]

AKA you're an idiot that really is failing his high school English courses.

Nope, just using common sense. Ancient people who use military exaggeration instead of modern historical analysis are obviously unreliable.

[Secular Liberation]

Your logic:

1. These famous people smoked pot.
2. Therefore, people who smoke pot must be intelligent.

That's pretty stupid there circular balloonist, even for you. Some smart people also have done cocaine too. Therefore doing drugs must not effect your intelligence in the least bit, correct or are you starting with the assumption that smart people can't do stupid things?

Marijuana is nothing like cocaine. Cocaine has been proven to reduce brain activity.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nope, just using common sense. Ancient people who use military exaggeration instead of modern historical analysis are obviously unreliable.

Fundy logic 101:

My way is superior to their way because I said so!

So you're saying modern historians don't have their own biasness and prejudices in their writing?

Yes or no?

[Secular Liberation]

Fundy logic 101:

My way is superior to their way because I said so!

So you're saying modern historians don't have their own biasness and prejudices in their writing?

Yes or no?

They have less bias than a bunch of religious savages who cut off peoples hands and thought the earth was flat.

[lilpixieofterror]

Marijuana is nothing like cocaine. Cocaine has been proven to reduce brain activity.

Sorry, but one can compose a list, just like the one you presented, of smart and important people doing cocaine too or are you starting with the assumption that smart people can't do dumb things too? Besides, I thought smoking dope was illegal and could land you in jail, so how is smoking pot an intelligent decision?

[lilpixieofterror]

They have less bias than a bunch of religious savages who cut off peoples hands and thought the earth was flat.

Yep, there is that racism, religious bigotry, and chronological snobbery, yet again.

I assume you're avoiding the question because you don't like the answer? Yes, modern historians do have their own prejudices and agendas too.

[JimL]

More or less. Scripture makes it very clear that the prophets were not possessed when they prophesied. Prophets often used language and figures of speech familiar to their audience. Just as most people in the West know that a football coach is using a common form of rhetoric when he tells his team to rip their opponents hearts out and leave them bleeding on the ground, the prophet's audience would also understand the prophet's use of familiar war rhetoric.

Adrift, try using your own brain. If god didn't actually communicate through the prophets exactly what the bible says he communicated, if the prophets are just making it up, then what is the point in believing anything at all that the prophets said about god? And really now, if god did not communicate to the prophets exactly what the bible says he communicated, then how on earth do you know the difference between what he communicated to the prophets and what they made up? And your analogy of a football coach's motivating speech with that of a prophesy from god is so weak, I can't believe that even you buy it. Seriously, tell me, when the bibls says "Thus sayeth the lord blah blah blah blah, how do you decipher between that which god actually communicated and that which the prophets made up? Well actually, I think I can answer that for you. You cherry pick out those parts that don't fit your ideal notion of god and fault the vessel of communication.

No. That's where a good hermeneutic, an understanding of genre, and Biblical scholarship comes in.

You only need a good hermeneutic for that which is not clearly understood, otherwise it is called spin.

Look. Even after a decade of hanging out on this forum, we all know how hard it is for you to wrap your mind around all of this. It should be surprising to us that it's still surprising to you, but at this point, I think most of us just feel sad for you. At some point in your life (and certainly in Gary's life), you were taught a form of hyper-fundamentalist Christianity that essentially made God into a humorless, expressionless robot. You believed that when he spoke certain things through his prophets and the prophets relaid that message back to the people, that there should have been some sort of 1-to-1 exactitude. Essentially, you seem to have believed that God should have been possessing his prophets, and literally speaking out of their mouths. But there's no scriptural evidence of that (outside of maybe Balaam's donkey). Most readers know through a little bit of Biblical scholarship, and a whole lot of common sense, that that's just not how things were done. Familiar expressions and figures of speech were widely used by the prophets in relaying God's messages. Outside of maybe the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists, most Christians understand this. No Christian believes that when Jesus said he was the gate or the door, that he literally meant that he was a gate/door. They knew that that was an expression. No one believes that when Jesus used an analogy about a hen to describe God, that Jesus was calling God a literal hen.

Then tell us Adrift, what was "don't spare them, kill the men and women, infant and nursing child" an anology for? Besides that, the next verse contradicts the argument of both you and lilpix. Saul killed all the Amaleks, excepting the animals and was reproved for that disobedience. Apparently god was upset that the innocent animals weren't murdered as well.

I don't know. Maybe you didn't grow up in a hyper-fundamentalist family. If not, then it just goes to show that whatever it is that makes some people fundamentalists isn't limited to the religious. Or maybe none of this matters to you one way or the other. A decade on this forum, you're quite familiar with the Biblical scholarship on the subject. Even accept it. But your aim is to "win the debate", and so you play ignorant just to score points.

No, my aim is to not allow the virus that was given to us to be passed on to others by you. It may be that you are a lost cause, that the infection has metastasised the cerebral cortex, but there is always hope.

[Secular Liberation]

Sorry, but one can compose a list, just like the one you presented, of smart and important people doing cocaine too or are you starting with the assumption that smart people can't do dumb things too? Besides, I thought smoking dope was illegal and could land you in jail, so how is smoking pot an intelligent decision?

When has cocaine helped treat a disease list this large

[Secular Liberation]

Yep, there is that racism, religious bigotry, and chronological snobbery, yet again.

I assume you're avoiding the question because you don't like the answer? Yes, modern historians do have their own prejudices and agendas too.

Not as bad as the men who wrote ancient mythology.

[lilpixieofterror]

When had cocaine helped treat a disease list this large

Rat poison can be an effect drug, for certain conditions therefore you should eat rat poison because it has been effective in the treatment of certain conditions.



Still showing that you can't think your way out of a paper bag, eh? Lots of drugs are effective in the treatment of many diseases and conditions, doesn't mean that popping pills is therefore a smart decision.