Catholics make up 78% of free state population.👍👍👍

[vallankumous]

I think the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.) are interesting. The story behind why they didn't make the "final cut" of the Bible is a great story in itself.

What I take from the Bible is that there probably was a Jesus-type character who was a "prophet" in the sense of being a philosopher and public speaker, since that was a common thing in Palestine at the time. The re-telling of some of the stories has lost some accuracy along the way, which is a pity because some of the intended lessons were lost. Case in point; the feeding of the 5000. It's told today as him performing a miracle by converting small amounts of fish and bread into large amounts. What really happened was people in those days carried food around with them because there wasn't exactly a grocery store or cafe on every corner. Some of his followers had run out of food, so he got everyone to put a bit of their food into a pile that could be evenly redistributed among the crowd. It was a lesson about collective effort to help everyone.

Did the crucifixion happen? Sounds about right since the Roman state felt a bit threatened by civil unrest he was stirring up with his newfangled ideas. The Romans wanted stability.

Did the resurrection happen? Obviously not, but if he somehow survived the crucifixion and was seen alive afterwards then that would explain how that little story got out to a small number of people. People being misdiagnosed as dead is not unheard of. If an earthquake coincided with his apparent "death" then the superstitious nature in everyone would have pounced on that as a meaningful event.

As for the old testament, some interesting creation myths in there. I heard once that there is evidence of a big ancient flood in the Black Sea region, so that would have fueled the Noah story.

So my personal take on the Bible a scripture in general is that there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it, but I don't accept supernatural explanations. I mean, what do you think is more likely? Mary was impregnated by an alien or was she fooling around with someone and decided to stick to her story? That said, there are some good lessons and messages in there. You can agree with the teachings of Ghandi without being Hindu, and you can agree with a lot of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian.

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

[J70]

I think the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.) are interesting. The story behind why they didn't make the "final cut" of the Bible is a great story in itself.

What I take from the Bible is that there probably was a Jesus-type character who was a "prophet" in the sense of being a philosopher and public speaker, since that was a common thing in Palestine at the time. The re-telling of some of the stories has lost some accuracy along the way, which is a pity because some of the intended lessons were lost. Case in point; the feeding of the 5000. It's told today as him performing a miracle by converting small amounts of fish and bread into large amounts. What really happened was people in those days carried food around with them because there wasn't exactly a grocery store or cafe on every corner. Some of his followers had run out of food, so he got everyone to put a bit of their food into a pile that could be evenly redistributed among the crowd. It was a lesson about collective effort to help everyone.

Did the crucifixion happen? Sounds about right since the Roman state felt a bit threatened by civil unrest he was stirring up with his newfangled ideas. The Romans wanted stability.

Did the resurrection happen? Obviously not, but if he somehow survived the crucifixion and was seen alive afterwards then that would explain how that little story got out to a small number of people. People being misdiagnosed as dead is not unheard of. If an earthquake coincided with his apparent "death" then the superstitious nature in everyone would have pounced on that as a meaningful event.

As for the old testament, some interesting creation myths in there. I heard once that there is evidence of a big ancient flood in the Black Sea region, so that would have fueled the Noah story.

So my personal take on the Bible a scripture in general is that there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it, but I don't accept supernatural explanations. I mean, what do you think is more likely? Mary was impregnated by an alien or was she fooling around with someone and decided to stick to her story? That said, there are some good lessons and messages in there. You can agree with the teachings of Ghandi without being Hindu, and you can agree with a lot of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian.

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

His explanations are based on run of the mill, every day, plausible interpretations e.g. pooling of food. Or they're based on scientific theories for which there is actual evidence e.g. flood myths being based on the flooding of the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. That's a lot more than can be said for a literal interpretation of the actual biblical stories.

As for your offense at the Mary bit, are you really that sensitive and delicate?

[vallankumous]

His explanations are based on run of the mill, every day, plausible interpretations e.g. pooling of food. Or they're based on scientific theories for which there is actual evidence e.g. flood myths being based on the flooding of the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. That's a lot more than can be said for a literal interpretation of the actual biblical stories.

As for your offense at the Mary bit, are you really that sensitive and delicate?

Yes, agreed.

I'm slightly offended. I'm not a strong catholic yet am still slightly offended.

Mary is a very important figure in Catholicism. While the faith is not above criticism the specific criticisms of Mary by the poster are deliberate with the intent to offend. The faith in and the figure of Mary can rightly be questioned without the need to degrade.

[Esmarelda]

If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.

[The Iceman]

If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.

what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

[Milltown Row2]

If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.

what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

So a fire talking bush and a man who wants to be a woman (but technically still a man) is on the same scale?

[J70]

If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.

what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

"Your" science??

In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?

[The Iceman]

If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.

what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

"Your" science??

In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?

I just find it funny that logic and reason and science are used so much in the case against religion....but biology is forgotten when it comes to Bruce Jenner or anyone else in his heels...

[Esmarelda]

If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.

what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

I'd say that sounds a bit mad, could you explain how, and more importantly, could you prove to me that you're not talking nonsense by showing me the woman.

Do you know what their answer would most likely be?

[J70]

If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.

what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

"Your" science??

In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?

I just find it funny that logic and reason and science are used so much in the case against religion....but biology is forgotten when it comes to Bruce Jenner or anyone else in his heels...

I'm not seeing how "biology is forgotten"?

[The Iceman]

a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?

[J70]

a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?

You're mixing up separate arguments and using the implications of one to falsely invalidate the other.

1. Whether or not there is a biological basis to transgenderism.
2. What the implications of transgenderism are or should be with respect to sports and athletics (or bathrooms etc.).

On the biological basis, true, anatomy is obviously a biological issue, but so is psychology, behaviour, hormones etc. And when it comes to anatomy, even something as straightforward as genitalia isn't always unambiguous and or subject to simple pigeonholing. Unless you're claiming that hermaphroditism doesn't exist or isn't subject to scientific study? That's before we even begin to touch on sexuality or gender identity. If one, like many biological traits, is subject to variation and resistant to simple either/or categorization, why would we be shocked when the other is too?

Again, I don't see the conflict with biology or science.

[Milltown Row2]

a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?

you still believe its the same as the talking burning bush?

[The Iceman]

a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?

you still believe its the same as the talking burning bush?

I'm simply asking where Science disappears to when we look at these things today...

And J70 if we allow people to be whoever or whatever they want to be because they think they are then where do we draw the line?
I realize this is probably a whole other thread and apologize for hijacking this one or steering it so far off course

[J70]

a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?

you still believe its the same as the talking burning bush?

I'm simply asking where Science disappears to when we look at these things today...

And J70 if we allow people to be whoever or whatever they want to be because they think they are then where do we draw the line?
I realize this is probably a whole other thread and apologize for hijacking this one or steering it so far off course

I don't know (and its something that would require a lot of thought and discussion).

But like I said, the implications of something and the scientific basis or justification for its existence are two separate issues.