Would you vote for an Atheist?

**rory_20_uk** · 08-20-2010, 09:23

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

He didn't. He quoted it as the Bible. His interpretation of scripture so cited and the life lessons he drew therefrom were pretty doctrinaire. You are free to draw as much or as little from his points as you wish. Instead, you attack a text from which you know he draws a good deal of moral inspiration and lessons in living. A needless shot. You could simply have noted that you do not have the same faith in that text the Rhyf has and therefore choose your own path.

It's a public forum. He chose to publicly quote and share his views and so did I. I'm not gate-crashing a service air my views to others.

Merely that one person likes something does not mean other views are censored and the individual punished - well not at the moment in the UK.

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-20-2010, 14:21

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

I'm not, though. I'm a small, petty man. When people disagree with me it frightens and confuses me. Why can't they accept that I'm awesome?

**rory_20_uk** · 08-20-2010, 14:30

To the FRONTROOM!!!

**Rhyfelwyr** · 08-20-2010, 15:31

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

He's a big enough boy to deal with disagreement in the Backroom.

Yes, but I prefer it when people make a reply that is relevant to what I am discussing.

I know you don't accept the authority of the Bible, but why come and point that out when two people are discussing something from a scriptural perspective? It's not like we're hearing some shocking new insight that is going to make us abandon the scripture in the middle of the argument.

It's like two people having a complicated discussion on the consequences of quantum theory, only for some guy to come and point out, "Hey guys, quantum theory is dubious!*". It's not really helpful for what they were discussing.

* I am not very aware of quantum theory so don't flame me if I'm wrong, 'tis just a hypothetical example

**rory_20_uk** · 08-20-2010, 15:36

Ah, so you decide relevance? I'm more than happy for you two to swop psalms from the KJ Bible by PM if that's better.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 08-20-2010, 15:46

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Ah, so you decide relevance? I'm more than happy for you two to swop psalms from the KJ Bible by PM if that's better.

Yes, I do decide on relevance, since I am once against using my magical quality for people to not address what I am saying, that I mentioned in the secularism thread. As I said, talking about the authority of the Bible is irrelevant when two people have agreed to work on that axiom.

I mean, what does the numbering of the psalms have to do with anything? I guess you are referring to the fact that as a Catholic, Seamus' Bible will number them differently from my KJV? The whole division of the Bible into chapters and verses is artificial, it makes them easier to reference, so what?

**rory_20_uk** · 08-20-2010, 15:53

And there's different things in those two bibles - and they are very similar Christian ones. The Coptic bible has some very different number of books.

But then you head on to the subject of the Apocrypha and related non-canonical texts. Suddenly the rock solid precept is less absolute.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 08-20-2010, 16:11

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And there's different things in those two bibles - and they are very similar Christian ones. The Coptic bible has some very different number of books.

But then you head on to the subject of the Apocrypha and related non-canonical texts. Suddenly the rock solid precept is less absolute.

We're pretty much on the same ground, at least with western Christianity. It might have become an issue if someone quoted from Maccabees, but that was always unlikely. Certainly, it was of no relevance to the discussion Beskar and myself were having, since we were discussing the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.

**rory_20_uk** · 08-20-2010, 16:16

Although |I can't claim to have read all the other Gospels in total, I think that they are very enlightening. To imagine that in c. 200 years only 4 gospel documents were written strikes me as highly implausible, and as we know that is not the case.

Then when one considers when the Bible was made canonical (more hundreds of years afterwards) it quickly becomes evident that it was early church politics rather than any other factor that is in play.