[NGTM-1R]

Why? We've got people pretending Marian Heresy is a legitimate criticism.

[Luis Dias]

It isn't? Prove it ain't so! If you can't it means its true, so THERE.

[Dragon]

Well to be totally honest, that is basically what the Bible says. I haven't read enough of his words to see if he does go too far, but of what you posted(besides some of the Catholic parts) is inline with the Bible.

Only if you take it literally, forgetting about the time it was written and thus overlook the real meaning, which means completely missing the entire point.
In fact, if taken literally, Bible might seem like a piece of really fantastical fiction, with some historical elements put in. What makes it special is the methaphorical meaning, which is much deeper than many people think. Unfortunately, only the intelligent people understand that, unintelligent ones either dismiss Bible as lies or belive the literal meaning, like most creationists or mr. Stewart. Literal meaning could have been good for unintelligent people when the Bible was written, though (For example, lack of tolerance for other religions could be explained by the fact Israelites were surrounded by cults which had beliefs that could be dangerous, e.g. human sacrifice (just an example, I'm not sure if any of these tribes actually did that). It was then important to make sure they won't convert to one of these primitive religions). Times had changed, so people who don't see the methaphorical meaning (which is valid no matter the time) are trying to follow a 2000 years old guidelines, some of which are no longer valid.

[Luis Dias]

I don't think that people who don't take the Bible seriously argue with your contextualized, historical viewpoint of the bible, Dragon. But you just assume that its metaphorical meaning is something that is above criticism, and of course I don't agree with that at all. Specifically, it is true that Jesus damnes everyone that doesn't follow him to hell. Literally or metaphorically, I can't see any way to read this and call it "Good". OTOH, if you call everything a metaphor, then we wonder what is the book good for, if one is always allowed to interpret it in any possible way.

[General Battuta]

All that matters in terms of the evaluation of religion are the empirical outcomes. The holy text is relevant only inasmuch as it impacts behavior. If the believers don't interpret it literally that's fine.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't think that people who don't take the Bible seriously argue with your contextualized, historical viewpoint of the bible, Dragon.

The people who take the Bible the most seriously, those who make a life of its study, most likely do. It is difficult or impossible to be truly scholarly in regards to something simply by memorizing its text, and you should beware of claiming those who have done so are scholars of it.

Also amusingly, I've rarely encountered people more ready to criticize the Bible as a literary work than Catholic priests.

[Luis Dias]

All that matters in terms of the evaluation of religion are the empirical outcomes. The holy text is relevant only inasmuch as it impacts behavior. If the believers don't interpret it literally that's fine.

Yeah, I'm okay with that too, despite the sheer irrationality and nihilism lurking underneath your idea... no wait that's actually pretty bad.

[General Battuta]

All that matters in terms of the evaluation of religion are the empirical outcomes. The holy text is relevant only inasmuch as it impacts behavior. If the believers don't interpret it literally that's fine.

Yeah, I'm okay with that too, despite the sheer irrationality and nihilism lurking underneath your idea... no wait that's actually pretty bad.

You seriously think there's some importance to the holy text beyond the impact it has on people's behavior?

Like, you think there's actually divine merit to the words or something?

[Luis Dias]

You assume that the words are meaningless chinese room drivel, so we shouldn't take them seriously. But the problem is, if we don't take words seriously, then everything we ever write or read is equally meaningless chinese room drivel. And there's a word for this attitude: Nihilism.

[NGTM-1R]

You assume that the words are meaningless chinese room drivel, so we shouldn't take them seriously. But the problem is, if we don't take words seriously, then everything we ever write or read is equally meaningless chinese room drivel. And there's a word for this attitude: Nihilism.

False dichotomy. Battuta believes we should take the words as serious as their impact on reality. This does not constitute nihilism; if something lifted your spirits by reading them, and you behaved in a different fashion because of it, then it should be taken seriously.

[General Battuta]

You assume that the words are meaningless chinese room drivel, so we shouldn't take them seriously. But the problem is, if we don't take words seriously, then everything we ever write or read is equally meaningless chinese room drivel. And there's a word for this attitude: Nihilism.

Uh no. What NGTM1R said is correct, I think words are meaningful inasmuch as they encode ideas which can alter behavior.

[Luis Dias]

It's a nihilistic attitude regarding what the words mean in our language.

Forget what the bible says and focus on what people do about it. Okay, let's agree for a moment. Most people, specially usual christians, don't ever take the bible seriously and rather focus on their own moral and social instincts. So we can conclude that this means that the bible is irrelevant, except as a placeholder. A placeholder that no one reads, but which everyone is convinced that is full of moral eternal truths and amazing transcendent lessons, and by working as a placeholder, it has an observable effect in people's behavior.

I get that part very well. That was, I think, the major reason why people still think the bible should stick to being written in latin, to obscure it even further.

But then we are favouring and condoning obscurantism. Which is anathema to the Enlightenment project. I can't condone that ****.

[General Battuta]

Uh okay

[Scotty]

A placeholder that no one reads

Ahahahhaha.

Hahahhahahaha.

Hahaha

aaaaahhhhhh.

Well, that explains some of your previous arguments, if you think that.

[Luis Dias]

I was discussing Battuta's idea that the words "don't matter", not what I actually think on the matter, so don't get cocky.

And it was a conceptual idea, an abstraction, to get my point through.

[NGTM-1R]

Which is anathema to the Enlightenment project.

It's right about at this point, I think, that I was spontaneously compelled to envision you as Gendo Ikari.

Or in simpler terms: run that by me again in different language? I'm not sure if there's a disconnect between us or if that genuinely made little sense.

[MP-Ryan]

Or in simpler terms: run that by me again in different language? I'm not sure if there's a disconnect between us or if that genuinely made little sense.

That was actually the only sentence that did make sense.  The Enlightenment "Project" (has Luis been reading philosophy lately, because this term is common to Foucault's writing) was about the proliferation of knowledge.  Condoning and favoring obscurity of information could be considered an anathema to it.

[NGTM-1R]

I meant everything, however that was good moment to point out that he'd apparently lost the plot.

[Luis Dias]

I was trying to say that obscurantism, that is, the "practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known" (wiki to the rescue), that is present in the attitude that deliberately ignores what is actually written in the bible, runs counter to what is generally known as the "Enlightenment", an 18th century attitude that values empiricism, reductionism, knowledge and rationality.

EDIT: what MP said.

[NGTM-1R]

EDIT: what MP said.

Which is, as I said to him, not what I meant. I get your premise. I don't get how anything you said aside from that relates to your premise or supports it.