You go to Hell for believing some parts of the Bible are bull****, but not others-

By that, I mean.....according to Christian teachings, a person goes to Hell for NOT believing the Bible when it says Jesus was the "Son of God" and that one should "accept him as their Saviour"....


but you can believe OTHER parts of the Bible are absolue stupid crap...like bats are "birds"*.....and it's "okay". No eternal hot-foot.

What's the difference?


*Leviticus 11:19

 

oh come now, god guides the goddies to know what the bible really means.

 

The bats/birds argument is probably the weakest one we have to make this case. For them to fold all flying things into one category is not really that big a deal is it?
There are FAR more compelling examples to use.
Retire the bats/birds argument.

 

Thebrucebeat is right, what translators have said means "birds" was actually a word that in Hebrew just means "winged creatures". Let's talk about how the Bible talks about giants instead, as an example.

 

Or how you can cure leprosy by cutting the head off a sparrow, dowsing another sparrow in its blood and flinging it on the leper seven times.

 

not a single response from our xian friends ...

 

... Where in the hell is that from?! Geesh, never heard that one...

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=331509

My count is going up Doesn't this previous thread seem so silly now?

 

Not really.
Both sides are what keeps this section of PF alive.

 

Leviticus but now that I think about it-it may be slinging the blood around in the house to cleanse the house from leprosy rather than on the person. But either way.

 

Retire the book that stupidly makes that claim in the first place.

 

If it was REALLY inspired by an all-knowing entity then it would HAVE NO weak arguments.

 

Just think of how many people COULD have been cured of ills if people hadn't/don't rely on prayer and other such nonsense (like the above) that religions advocate.
If you go to a hospital/doctor that rely on SCIENCE, then you are admitting that prayer isn't all that effective. Think about that.

 

at some point in the future I believe most people will understand that one can believe in a higher power without believing in the bible version of that higher power as a jealous vengeful old man that loves you

many of our founders were Deistic, I think that will be the next step on the path to enlightenment for many

.

 

So why make yours weaker than it could be?

 

deism, maybe. you make good points.

swedenism would be my preference.

 

You are so heated up and rabid that you fail to understand that I am trying to show how to make the point you are trying to make more effective. The bats/birds bit is very easily deflected by believers. It's a lousy example of scriptural error.
You are your own worst enemy.

 

There is no hell. There is no eternal life in some hell somewhere.
The wicked simply cease to exist when they leave this life. They are simply recycled like crushed junk cars.

Hell is in this life. The hell of knowing that you are going to be less than nothing when your time on Earth ends.

Who told the truth in the Garden of Eden, the serpent who said, "Ye shall surely NOT die"
Or
The God of mother nature who said, "The wages of sin is death"?

 

so, the 'wicked' (aka everyone not a xian) just die, but you Special Saved Snowflakes get to be immortal. just like vampires

 

The argument is based on a Hebrew word which translates as "flying things" and which scholars chose to translate in English as birds. Its human error.

 

Just like the resurrection was, human error in translations.
If it's so wrong, they'd change it, if they were smart. Too bad they aren't.

 

There are translations that change it.

Do you think there is only one English translation of the Bible?

Seriously, I've said this before and I'll say it again, the way you attack religion makes all Atheists look like (*)(*)(*)(*)bags. You need to calm down the rhetoric some.

 

Yes, I do look at different translations all the time. Good point.
Here, virtually every one of the translations (18 of 19!) use "birds" or "fowl", so while yes, they CAN change the translation, they are usually too scared/cowardly to do so (by an 18 to 1 ratio, in this example!) http://biblehub.com/leviticus/11-13.htm
The translations are wrong by an 18:1 ratio. Too bad "god" doesn't really exist, or he could very easily have told them to change it (when he can take time out from killing people with "acts of god" - such as that devastating typhoon that killed many many innocent children.)

Fowl: "Fowl is a word for birds in general but usually refers to birds belonging to one of two biological orders, namely the gamefowl or landfowl and the waterfowl."

You seem to be trying hard to defend the indefensible.
You also seem to have more patience than I do when it comes to discrediting religion (that's good and bad.)

 

No, really, it works.

 

So you're going to apply the modern English definition of fowl to an ancient culture using a different language? Long before our system of scientific classification came into being? There are different ways to classify things, and if ancient man chose to put bats in the same category as birds, then it would make perfect sense to mention bats when mentioning birds, and it's just pure arrogance to believe that they are wrong for doing so.