nesdev.org

Espozo wrote:

DRW wrote:Is this how the Christian "Love thy neighbor" rule it put into practice?

Again, because I'm such a big Christian.

Alright, fine, I got it: The most important number 1 central law of Christianity only really applies if you're a hardcore Christian, not if you're a more lenient one.

Espozo wrote:How does anything of yours fall under "Love thy neighbor"?

I'm not a Christian, so I don't claim myself to be a member of a religion that propagates this rule. Therefore, you cannot use this rule against me.

Besides, I'm not talking about your general discussion, but about the fact that, for some reason, you called me your enemy. (A thing that I myself didn't do, by the way, so yeah: My hypothetical "Love thy neighbor" is still better than yours.)
If some random person on the internet who you disagree with already becomes your enemy, how do you ever want to turn the other cheek if somebody actually slaps you?

Espozo wrote:Can you show some sort of example where "translation error" was the first thing to come to someone's mind, because it's such a common problem?

Whenever I discuss with Christians and I show them a Bible verse that they haven't been trained to explain away, they usually start with: "But are you sure it's correctly translated?"

Espozo wrote:

DRW wrote:Some desert people

I'm sure nobody would take offense to that.

I was talking about people that lived 4000 years ago. 4000 years. I didn't mention a single person who is still alive nor who was alive in our generation. In fact, I didn't mention any specific person.
Why do you take personal offense if I call a general group of people from 4000 years ago who lived in a totally different part of the earth from you primitive?
Would you also be pissed if somebody made fun of the war-hungry barbarians or the huns? Would you take serious offense if somebody showed the antic Greeks as boylovers?
Or is it just because I insulted people that are somehow tied to "da Bye-bell"?

Espozo wrote:Who said anything about every single? I haven't read the Bible in every different language.

But I consider you clever enough to be aware of the fact that every one of those Bible translations condemns homosexuality.

Espozo wrote:You're a shithead?

Doesn't work. I used this trick because you claimed that you just asked questions. So, I used your own words against you and formulated an insult masked as a question which, by your very own logic, shouldn't be an insult. You know, to show you that your logic is flawed.
If you do this, it hasn't the same effect because I never said that I follow this logic myself.

tepples wrote:True in the majority of cases. But in the minority of cases, you may have run into a newly discovered hardware quirk.

Right. That would be the situation where someone who knows the Bible actually investigated it and found something.
But if you play "Super Mario Bros. 3" on a PowerPak and you notice the graphics artifacts on the right side when the screen is scrolling, you shouldn't accuse the PowerPak of a bug if you have no idea what the real "Super Mario Bros. 3" on a cartridge looks like. Implying a bug in the PowerPak would be condescending, unless you can show that you investigated the issue.

Likewise, you shouldn't throw around "Translation error?" if you haven't even seen the passage in English yet, but are just aware: "Yeah, there was something about homosexuality. I'm not sure where it is written or what it says, but how about this: Could it be a translation error?"

...Um... I'm still waiting for the explanation why saying God's name without any reason to do so is bad.
*sigh* Should've never mentioned Christianity and the Bible. I've just started another bullshit argument.

"Don't bring God into arguments that don't need to involve Him"?

DRW wrote: The most important number 1 central law of Christianity

That's "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me". It's not like you never sin if you're a Christian. The whole point is that that's impossible.

DRW wrote:Why do you take personal offense if I call a general group of people from 4000 years ago who lived in a totally different part of the earth from you primitive?

It has more to do with following the primitive people rather than being them.

DRW wrote:But I consider you clever enough

I don't know about that...

DRW wrote:Doesn't work.

I wasn't aware insults have rules. It's like claiming war does.

BioMechanical Dude wrote:Should've never mentioned Christianity and the Bible. I've just started another bullshit argument.

How? It's either I or DRW that started this pointless argument.

Espozo wrote:I wasn't aware insults have rules. It's like claiming war does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

Espozo wrote:That's "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me".

Wrong. This is just the first of the 10 commandments. But according to Jesus, the following is the greatest commandment:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? / Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. / This is the first and great commandment. / And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. / On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40)

Espozo wrote:It's not like you never sin if you're a Christian. The whole point is that that's impossible.

But explicitly declaring me your enemy is a pretty vain thing to do. So, this is one case where avoiding the sin would have been very easy. (Not that I care since I don't consider it a sin to begin with. I'm merely talking about the belief of the religion that you claim to follow.)
But I see, your stance is that you cannot avoid sinning anyway, so you don't even try.

Espozo wrote:It has more to do with following the primitive people rather than being them.

You don't really follow them.
You don't know shit about the Bible, you don't seem to care and you declare yourself not that much of a hardcore Christian. So, no, you obviously don't follow these ancient tribal people. (Which, again, is something I don't mind. I just show you the contradiction in your own statements.)

I mean, in one moment you say you're not that strict in your belief, but on the other hand you take personal insult when somebody makes fun of the people who wrote down the Biblical laws in an attempt to sell them as God's own word.

You should get your stuff together:

Either you believe the Bible in a literal way and believe that the commandments are actually God's words, dictated to and written down by Moses.
In this case, you should study your Bible. How come you haven't read the book of the highest being in the universe?
Also, you shouldn't try to explain away stuff: If you believe that the Bible, or at least the words attributed to God, is actually the word of God, then a man having sex with another man is an abomination in God's eyes, period.

Or you are a liberal Christian who sees the Bible merely as a product of human minds that has to be understood in its cultural context.
In this case, these desert dwellers are in no way better or more enlightened than other people of their time and you shouldn't be pissed just because I make fun of their silly superstitions in the same way I would make fun of the people who think that breaking a mirror brings seven years of bad luck or who think that black cats are sent by the Devil.
If you don't consider the Bible God's word, why do you care that I call things in an age old man-made book stupid?

So, which one is it: Biblical literalist or liberal believer? Take one side and then act consistently according to it. Don't tell me you're not that much of a strict Christian, but then act like a Bible thumper just because I made fun of the worldview of ancient goat herders.

Either they are the true prophets of God or they just made the stuff up.
If they are God's prophets, read your Bible because it's the most important book in the world.
If they made the stuff up, don't tell me it's insulting when I make fun of deluded people from 4000-2000 years ago.

Espozo wrote:I wasn't aware insults have rules. It's like claiming war does.

I'm not talking about rules, I'm talking about logic:
If you say a silly thing, it's legitimate to mock you with the silly thing.
If you try to mock me with the same silly thing, obviously it doesn't work. Because I'm not the one who actually holds the silly thing as a truth. I just used it in a mocking way.

So, you can't use it against me. You can only use silly things against me if I honestly consider them true.
This doesn't mean you're not allowed to do it. It just means that the joke will fall flat.

DRW wrote:So, which one is it: Biblical literalist or liberal believer?

That's a false dichotomy. The traditional Catholic position, for instance, is more nuanced.

Also, you're being a dick. Stop it. I should have taken my own advice. That could have been phrased more diplomatically...

93143 wrote:That's a false dichotomy. The traditional Catholic position, for instance, is more nuanced.

Either a commandment is by God or it is by men. How can there be a middle way?

93143 wrote:Also, you're being a dick. Stop it.

Don't tell me what I can and what I cannot do.
Besides, why am I a dick? Just because I confront him with a logical dilemma?

DRW wrote:But I see, your stance is that you cannot avoid sinning anyway, so you don't even try.

It's crazy to think how people can loose their temper.

DRW wrote:You don't know shit about the Bible

Do you know me on a personal level now? Unless you're basing that off this:

DRW wrote:Wrong. This is just the first of the 10 commandments. But according to Jesus, the following is the greatest commandment:

Excuse me for not Googling "the most important commandment" (or some variation of it): https://www.google.com/#q=the+most+impo ... ommandment

DRW wrote:why do you care that I call things in an age old man-made book stupid?

Because it's effectively calling everyone who believe that book to be true stupid, and that just seems arrogant. It'd be different if it weren't impossible to know if it's true or not.

because I confront him with a logical dilemma?

Is it impossible to confront someone with a logical dilemma while being a jerk about it?

Espozo wrote:

BioMechanical Dude wrote:Should've never mentioned Christianity and the Bible. I've just started another bullshit argument.

How? It's either I or DRW that started this pointless argument.

BioMechanical Dude was the first to mention the Bible in this post, and I'm tempted to split this topic there. Though I share some of the blame because I was the first to cite chapter and verse.

Espozo wrote:

DRW wrote:But I see, your stance is that you cannot avoid sinning anyway, so you don't even try.

It's crazy to think how people can loose their temper.

Funny how you think that this sentence is me losing my temper.

As you might know after writing with me: I'm an atheist. The concept of "sin" in the religious sense has no meaning to me. Therefore, I don't care if you declare me an enemy or whatever. I only point out where your own behavior is self-contradictory or inconsistent.

Since I only show you where you make errors within your own logic, but I don't care about your behavior in a general way, I really don't understand why you think that this sentence represents me losing my temper.

Espozo wrote:

DRW wrote:You don't know shit about the Bible

Do you know me on a personal level now?

I don't need to know you on a personal level to be able to see that you don't know very much about the Bible.
I do know a lot about the Bible, certainly more than the average Christian. So, I guess I can judge pretty well if somebody has good knowledge of this book or if he just knows some bits and pieces that he has heard somewhere here and there.

Espozo wrote:Excuse me for not Googling "the most important commandment" (or some variation of it)

That's the thing: A devout Christian who knows his Bible doesn't need to google this. It's one of the main pillars of Christianity. That's like a Jew not knowing the Shema Jisrael or a Muslim not knowing about the five daily prayers.

Espozo wrote:Because it's effectively calling everyone who believe that book to be true stupid, and that just seems arrogant.

I don't call everybody who believes it stupid. Many people are just delusional. And many people just believe because they got used to it. Many people are indoctrinated. There are a bunch of reasons why people believe the strangest things. This doesn't mean that I call them stupid. But it also doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to make fun of those beliefs.

By the way, the whole being arrogant thing: Does this count for everything in the world or do you make a special case for the Bible?

What I mean is: Am I arrogant if I make fun of old wife tales, like not walking under a ladder? Am I arrogant for making fun of sacrificing a goat, so that the rain comes?
After all, there are people who believe this.

So, do I have to respect every single belief in the world, like having sex with a virgin cures AIDS or the moon landing being faked? Am I not allowed to ridicule anything at all, unless I want to be seen as arrogant?
Or do I just have to respect specifically the Bible-related stuff, but am free to make fun of every non-Bible belief?

Espozo wrote:It'd be different if it weren't impossible to know if it's true or not.

Well, that's the thing: Much of the stuff in the Bible can be proven to be incorrect.
Remember the sky hard as a mirror? That's objectively bullshit.
Or every single species having room on Noah's ark? Every single one of them?
How about "the four corners of the Earth"?
And have you ever tried to harmonize the resurrection stories of the four gospels? Not possible.

Espozo wrote:Is it impossible to confront someone with a logical dilemma while being a jerk about it?

No, but you should be able to show me where exactly I have been a jerk, or at least a bigger jerk than you. At least I don't call people shithead, dick or jerk. Tell me where I seriously attacked you on a personal level, except for the half-satirical "drama queen".
Just stating facts that you don't like doesn't make me a jerk, even if it's about the Bible.

DRW wrote:Funny how you think that this sentence is me losing my temper.

I was implying I was loosing my temper.

DRW wrote:That's the thing: A devout Christian who knows his Bible doesn't need to google this. It's one of the main pillars of Christianity. That's like a Jew not knowing the Shema Jisrael or a Muslim not knowing about the five daily prayers.

How would you know if you're not a Christian yourself, regardless of knowing the Bible?

DRW wrote:I don't call everybody who believes it stupid. Many people are just delusional.

What's the difference? Is stupid a measure of brain function, or knowledge?

DRW wrote:So, do I have to respect every single belief in the world, like having sex with a virgin cures AIDS or the moon landing being faked? Am I not allowed to ridicule anything at all, unless I want to be seen as arrogant?

If you do it to someone who believes in these things in the same manner you've done here, then yes.

DRW wrote:At least I don't call people shithead

No, you just tell them they don't know shit.

I think it's all a little less confusing when you look at it from the perspective of what was first a small, primitive tribe, attempting to survive. Nearly all of the Mosaic law was targeted towards strengthening them as a group, dissuading insubordination, and simple, early medical guidelines. There was enough of a period of recorded information to collect this data through observation, and Moses would have theoretically had access to a lot of privileged information not available to the common man. Asides from health concerns, homosexuality would have weakened the tribe as at that time, their ability to reproduce, and their numbers, had a direct effect on their fitness in the environment.

Then, eventually, over time, a company named Color Dreams saw that there was a market for video games for the Nintendo Entertainment System based on a religion which had evolved from these early teachings, known as Christianity. This company shifted the focus of their development toward games themed on this religion, and found more success than it was able to previously. Many people believe that these games are low-quality, and quickly released to exploit the pre-existing market for those who identify with the Christian religion. Has anyone here played such games? I myself have played Bible Adventures, and did not feel that it was a satisfying gameplay experience on par with even average platformers for the console.