Thread Tools
Old 10-22-2015, 10:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,839
Response to David Cross's Quote Re: the Bible

"Because you know, when the bible was written, and then rewritten, and then edited, and then re-edi -ted, then translated from dead languages and then re-retranslated and re-edited again, then re-re-re-edited, and then re-translated, and then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts out, and then re-edited and re-translated and given to the pope for him to approve, and then re-edited and re-written— all based on stories that were told orally 30 to 90 years after they had happened to people who didn’t know how to write… I guess what I’m trying to say is, the bible is literally the world’s oldest game of telephone."-David Cross

I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.

Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I haven't been here in awhile. Thank you.
Old 10-22-2015, 10:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 34,689
Bottom line: Cross doesn't know what he's talking about. He should just sit quietly until the next Chipmunks movie.
Old 10-22-2015, 10:47 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,453
My answer is if God designed the whole system God knew all they and has built it into the design - so exactly how God wants it for our time.

Perfect example, the parable of the talents. Back then a coin, today it has a different meaning, equally if not more so meaningful, or to put it another way God knows what 'He' is doing.
Old 10-22-2015, 10:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,917
Are you an atheist? The answer to that might have some bearing on your response.
Old 10-22-2015, 11:02 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,553
As an atheist, here's how I'd answer -- "Because religion is fascinating and hugely important in the world. It's had huge impacts on human history and continues to do so. It's a big influence in most people's lives. It's almost an endlessly fascinating topic."
Old 10-22-2015, 11:11 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Perfect example, the parable of the talents. Back then a coin, today it has a different meaning, equally if not more so meaningful, or to put it another way God knows what 'He' is doing.
You know you have it backward, right? The modern meaning of the word "talent" came about because of the parable, not the other way around.
Old 10-22-2015, 11:14 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As an atheist, here's how I'd answer -- "Because religion is fascinating and hugely important in the world. It's had huge impacts on human history and continues to do so. It's a big influence in most people's lives. It's almost an endlessly fascinating topic."
Men could say the same about women's bodies but mansplaing is looked down on.
Old 10-22-2015, 11:29 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As an atheist, here's how I'd answer -- "Because religion is fascinating and hugely important in the world. It's had huge impacts on human history and continues to do so. It's a big influence in most people's lives. It's almost an endlessly fascinating topic."
Agreed in all respects.

It's also worth noting that Cross, in the opening quote, overstates the facts dramatically. It didn't quite come about that way. There are lots and lots of excellent books about the origin of the Bible, and the facts are fascinating. The various manuscripts that were assembled into the Torah -- why we have two different tellings of creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc. -- is, in itself, one of the great mysteries of history.

The fact that a Kingdom of David existed (although not as great a Kingdom as the Bible claims) is wonderful and fascinating. It doesn't tell us any more about God than the discovery of Troy tells us about Aphrodite...but it is well worth the attention of any educated American.
Old 10-23-2015, 03:44 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post
I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.

Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I haven't been here in awhile. Thank you.
The question isn't whether or not a commenter accepts the literal truth of what they're commenting on. It is that others do, and do so with the belief that that justifies them in expecting intellectual and moral privilege for their opinions, not only on that topic, but also on anything to which they believe their belief applies. If you argue for any proposition on the basis of nonsense, you must expect to have the nonsense pointed out.
Old 10-23-2015, 06:11 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,437
Never heard of David Cross before, but thought the comparison to the telephone game was amusing and a good way of putting it. Some religious people are not capable of hearing anything less than glowing reviews of their religion, and if they hear anything less, they prefer to shoot the messenger, and/or pretend to be offended. There are some delicate flowers out there, and this evidently is one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
The fact that a Kingdom of David existed (although not as great a Kingdom as the Bible claims) is wonderful and fascinating. It doesn't tell us any more about God than the discovery of Troy tells us about Aphrodite...but it is well worth the attention of any educated American.
Haven’t kept up with the latest, so did some quick search engines, and got mixed reviews, with one putting it succinctly, “depends which archaeologist you are asking.” How concrete is this?
Old 10-23-2015, 07:08 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquadementia View Post
Men could say the same about women's bodies but mansplaing is looked down on.
Plus women are not generally putting vast amounts of effort into turning men physically into women, whereas Christians spend a lot of time trying to convert atheists.
Old 10-23-2015, 07:37 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.

Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I haven't been here in awhile. Thank you.
I can think of a few responses:

Firstly, she's being sly, implying something without wanting to say it, so my standard response in that case is "Your point being?" Make her come into the open.

Secondly, you could go more directly to the heart of the matter; "Christians sure do spend a lot of time forcing their religion and religious mores on those who absolutely do not believe in them"

Thirdly you could comment on her obvious ad hom: "Why is it a problem for you that atheists comment? Is Cross's analysis wrong or far too close to the truth?"
Old 10-23-2015, 07:49 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
It's also worth noting that Cross, in the opening quote, overstates the facts dramatically.
No, he overstates the facts comically. He's a stand up comedian. That is basically the definition of stand up comedy.
Old 10-23-2015, 07:57 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,923
I'm amazed at how often people who aren't comedians like to laugh at jokes.
Old 10-23-2015, 08:19 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 27,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post
How would you respond to her response.
"Aww, fuck off, Betty!"

Unless her name isn't Betty. In that case I'd be lost.
Old 10-23-2015, 08:25 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
You know you have it backward, right? The modern meaning of the word "talent" came about because of the parable, not the other way around.
I did not know that, would ask for a cite but really immaterial, as still God designed everything for our modern meaning, so my point still stands.
Old 10-23-2015, 08:33 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 27,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
No, he overstates the facts comically. He's a stand up comedian. That is basically the definition of stand up comedy.
I'll always remember him for Sailing and Arthur's Theme.
Old 10-23-2015, 08:34 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I did not know that, would ask for a cite but really immaterial, as still God designed everything for our modern meaning, so my point still stands.
Or it just means you can shoehorn everything into inshallah.
Old 10-23-2015, 08:35 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
I'll always remember him for Sailing and Arthur's Theme.
No that was Kriss Kross. Remember, he wore his pants backwards.
Old 10-23-2015, 08:48 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 27,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
No that was Kriss Kross. Remember, he wore his pants backwards.
Right, but I'll still always remember David Cross for Sailing and Arthur's Theme.
Old 10-23-2015, 08:53 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
It's also worth noting that Cross, in the opening quote, overstates the facts dramatically. It didn't quite come about that way.
Yes. Cross is a comedian, not a Biblical scholar. He's going for laughs, not accuracy.
Old 10-23-2015, 09:19 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Plus women are not generally putting vast amounts of effort into turning men physically into women, whereas Christians spend a lot of time trying to convert atheists.
Or atheist trying to convert the religious, well, Christians at least.

David Cross is hilarious. I love his work. This isn't about David Cross. It's about the OP thinking she had a real zinger and when someone refused to act like they've been zinged she came here to find a way to verbally put them over a barrel and submit to their zinging. In the parlance of the time it's #HelpMeCreateMoreFacebookDrama.

Last edited by Aquadementia; 10-23-2015 at 09:20 AM.
Old 10-23-2015, 10:06 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I did not know that, would ask for a cite but really immaterial, as still God designed everything for our modern meaning, so my point still stands.
http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=talent
http://collinsdictionary.com/dic...english/talent


And when you say "God designed everything for our modern meaning", what do you mean by that? Are previous and future generations screwed theologically, with only our generation able to wholly understand the bible?
Old 10-23-2015, 10:24 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 6,127
I am not an atheist, but it seems to me like there's an excluded middle here. On the part of the quote of David Cross, he has a point to issues with translations and editing, but I think it's WAY overstated. Sometimes examples of much older versions, the most famous of those being the Dead Sea Scrolls, show up and the information in those are used for future translations, commentaries, etc. Now, obviously, none of the Gospels were written during the life of Jesus, and certainly there are comments, good and bad, about which books were included in the canon and which were not, but there is definitely a vested interest in at least getting as accurate as possible to the original writings.

For the response, I also think it's unreasonable to expect atheists not to comment on religion. After all, religion is one of, if not THE, most influential aspects on our culture, particularly in the US; it's influence cannot be overstated, particularly as we look at how it Western culture developed and the spread of Christianity through Europe and the Americas. That said, I do find it frustrating, not just from Atheists, but from anyone commenting on a religion they don't believe in, to focus heavily on what they perceive as negative aspects or inaccuracies; this is just as true of many Christians commenting on Islam. In this case, it's not only unhelpful, but probably furthers the rift, by exaggerating inaccuracies in the Bible. Sure, his fellow atheists get a giggle out of it, but it's not going to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with him, and people will end up quoting it and start discussions between atheists and theists that will likely be counterproductive.

Ultimately, the point is, it doesn't matter. Obviously, atheists think it's all nonsense, some largely harmlessly nonsense, some not so much. For theists, some may argue that the divine inspiration has made it so any changes actually are intended by God, others may argue that even if some small details change, the essential elements to salvation, faith, and the teachings remain intact. But given these positions, where is any traction going to be gained discussing the nature of scripture? There's no proof either side can present that can meaningfully demonstrate the divine aspect, or lack thereof, to those holding the contrary position.

Instead, I would propose using this as an opportunity to open a dialogue about how we can work through the differences to find meaningful common ground. I don't see how antagonizing people with different beliefs can help us reach that sort of goal. So, sure, I do think a response should include an idea that, regardless of the fact that an atheist obviously doesn't believe in the Bible, he does still have a vested interest in understanding because of it's cultural influence. But instead, I think the discussion should be redirected toward an understanding of how it's influenced our culture, and where these influences belong in our culture.


All of that said, in general, I've found that any almost every discussion on Facebook regarding religion ends up messy unless everyone involved agrees. And even if everyone agrees I tend to see either "Wow, God is awesome!" or "Christians are so silly". So, I almost always just stay out of them.
Old 10-23-2015, 10:40 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post
I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.

Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response.
My response would be "Kim Davis".

If Christians feel they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people, then they open those religious beliefs up for public debate.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 10-23-2015 at 10:42 AM.
Old 10-23-2015, 11:06 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: KCMO
Posts: 11,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post
I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded: I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.
Atheists don't believe in God, but religion is a different thing. It's not something you "believe in," it's something that clearly factually exists. And since some of those who do believe in God use their religion to affect (often negatively) the lives of atheists, how can someone be surprised that atheists will comment on it? Said friend is not thinking this through, and simply appears defensive about something that questions some aspects of her religion.
Old 10-23-2015, 11:17 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary T View Post
Atheists don't believe in God, but religion is a different thing. It's not something you "believe in," it's something that clearly factually exists. And since some of those who do believe in God use their religion to affect (often negatively) the lives of atheists, how can someone be surprised that atheists will comment on it? Said friend is not thinking this through, and simply appears defensive about something that questions some aspects of her religion.
This. To put it simply, just because I don't believe in your god doesn't meant I don't get to complain when you effect my life through the beliefs of the religion surrounding your god.
Old 10-23-2015, 11:20 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 18,065
I would delete her response. If, by some wildly optimistic happenstance you were actually talking to another human being in person, I'd probably say, "Well bless your heart!".
Old 10-23-2015, 12:20 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaster Master View Post
I am not an atheist, but it seems to me like there's an excluded middle here. On the part of the quote of David Cross, he has a point to issues with translations and editing, but I think it's WAY overstated. Sometimes examples of much older versions, the most famous of those being the Dead Sea Scrolls, show up and the information in those are used for future translations, commentaries, etc. Now, obviously, none of the Gospels were written during the life of Jesus, and certainly there are comments, good and bad, about which books were included in the canon and which were not, but there is definitely a vested interest in at least getting as accurate as possible to the original writings.
Your post reminds me that Steve Martin felt obligated to tell people that he knew King Tut was not born in Arizona. Typically, jokes do not require cites.
Old 10-23-2015, 12:25 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post

Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I haven't been here in awhile. Thank you.
The first thing I'd say is "lighten up, Louise."
The second thing I'd say is to ask if she was a literalist. If not, then she should agree that there is a nugget of truth in the joke.
The third thing I'd say is to ask her to consider how often the religious try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, from trying to put Creationism in schools to attacks on SSM to attacks on abortion rights.

As for me, I'm fascinated at how so many people can be so deluded in this day and age. 1,000 years ago when Goddidit was as good as explanation as any is one thing, but now we pretty much know how much of it happened, and how wrong the Bible is.
Old 10-23-2015, 12:47 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post
I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.
You should agree with her, and tell her how sick and tired you are of your long, cross-country drives where you can get nothing on your AM radio except atheists trying to raise money by assuring donors that through their generosity, they will not get to heaven.
Old 10-23-2015, 12:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 754
Of course atheists and nonbelievers spend time on something they don't believe in...because many of the people that do believe in it want to base laws on it, start wars over it, and kill people in the name of it.

If this lady woke up one day and lawmakers were trying to make things legal or illegal based on what a giant purple tiger that created us all (but was invisible to most) would think, I'm guessing she would get the picture.

Oh, nobody in your state can buy juice on Thursdays, tiger says so. And you can't get heart surgery, because the tiger says your soul lives in your heart, so if you get heart disease you will just need to go ahead and die. And some tiger-believers might bomb your place of business for your anti-tiger beliefs, or kill cardiologists that found a heart surgery loophole in the new law. And redheaded people can't get married, because the tiger says they were born evil and we don't want any more of them around.

That's why nonbelievers "care so much about something they don't believe in."
Old 10-23-2015, 01:51 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Flatlander in NH
Posts: 25,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
"Aww, fuck off, Betty!"

Unless her name isn't Betty. In that case I'd be lost.

"Aww, fuck off, [Your Name Here]!"
Old 10-23-2015, 04:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by razncain View Post
. . . Haven’t kept up with the latest, so did some quick search engines, and got mixed reviews, with one putting it succinctly, “depends which archaeologist you are asking.” How concrete is this?
I guess not so very; I had thought the existence of a "Kingdom of David" had been established, but that its extent was still not completely established. If the very existence is still debated, that's okay too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Yes. Cross is a comedian, not a Biblical scholar. He's going for laughs, not accuracy.
My fault: I didn't catch that from the quote. I thought it was meant to be a (semi) serious criticism of Biblical origins.

(But, then, if it's just a comedy routine...why start the thread at all?)
Old 10-23-2015, 04:20 PM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
My fault: I didn't catch that from the quote. I thought it was meant to be a (semi) serious criticism of Biblical origins.

(But, then, if it's just a comedy routine...why start the thread at all?)
What do you mean by "just a comedy routine?" Some of the best, smartest social commentary is achieved through comedy. Although I don't share the many of the same viewpoints as David Cross, he is wickedly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable. It's just that he reaches his truth using the tools of the stand up comedian which include purposeful exaggeration for effect and sarcasm. He was not giving a college lecture. Every word can not be picked apart for accuracy. But that does not mean his overall message in false.
Old 10-23-2015, 04:33 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post

(But, then, if it's just a comedy routine...why start the thread at all?)
From the OP:
Quote:
I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.

Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response.
Old 10-23-2015, 06:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,852
Oh... Well, in that case...

Quote:
I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.
That's really dumb. We all spend a lot of time discussing things that don't exist: we discuss fictional characters from books, TV, and movies. We have debates over the Star Trek Transporter. (And whether .999... = 1) We play poker and bridge -- for money! We scan online porn.

WTF? Are we supposed to talk about our jobs and our children, our health, and our groceries, and nothing else? The universe is chock-full of fascinating abstract things to jaw about, and jawing what we humans do best!
Old 10-23-2015, 07:27 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
That's really dumb. We all spend a lot of time discussing things that don't exist: we discuss fictional characters from books, TV, and movies. We have debates over the Star Trek Transporter. (And whether .999... = 1) We play poker and bridge -- for money! We scan online porn.

WTF? Are we supposed to talk about our jobs and our children, our health, and our groceries, and nothing else? The universe is chock-full of fascinating abstract things to jaw about, and jawing what we humans do best!
Atheists talk about religion for the same reason people talk about the Presidential race. Even if we aren't running for the office, we're still going to be effected by the event.
Old 10-23-2015, 07:39 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
I'm amazed at how often people who aren't comedians like to laugh at jokes.
Someday, in the fullness of time, people will laugh at one of yours. I remain your advocate and defender in this matter despite the multitude of naysayers.
Old 10-23-2015, 11:40 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Memphis
Posts: 5,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazle Weatherfield View Post
"Because you know, when the bible was written, and then rewritten, and then edited, and then re-edi -ted, then translated from dead languages and then re-retranslated and re-edited again, then re-re-re-edited, and then re-translated, and then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts out, and then re-edited and re-translated and given to the pope for him to approve, and then re-edited and re-written— all based on stories that were told orally 30 to 90 years after they had happened to people who didn’t know how to write… I guess what I’m trying to say is, the bible is literally the world’s oldest game of telephone."-David Cross

I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.

Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I haven't been here in awhile. Thank you.
I'm a positive atheist and I wonder this same thing myself sometimes. I know a lot of us are bitter but some are downright obsessed.
Old 10-24-2015, 03:22 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Oh... Well, in that case...



That's really dumb. We all spend a lot of time discussing things that don't exist: we discuss fictional characters from books, TV, and movies. We have debates over the Star Trek Transporter. (And whether .999... = 1) We play poker and bridge -- for money! We scan online porn.
Has anyone published the Nitpickers Guide to the Bible? Oh, wait - nearly every theology book ever published.

**note** that was a joke. You do not need to post a list of theology books which ae not Nitpickers' Guides to the Bible.
Old 10-24-2015, 06:00 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 2,889
Quote:
I'm amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.
Imagine living in a modern society dominated by people prone to justifying cruel or contemptuous behavior based solely on arbitrary interpretations of far-fetched literature of a bronze-age nomadic desert culture.

Such a bizarre predicament has a way of preoccupying one's life, especially when one is unable to escape it.

Last edited by B. Serum; 10-24-2015 at 06:01 AM.
Old 10-24-2015, 01:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 3,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Agreed in all respects.

It's also worth noting that Cross, in the opening quote, overstates the facts dramatically. It didn't quite come about that way. There are lots and lots of excellent books about the origin of the Bible, and the facts are fascinating. The various manuscripts that were assembled into the Torah -- why we have two different tellings of creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc. -- is, in itself, one of the great mysteries of history.
I know Cross was joking, and that 'splaining kills the funny, but he wasn't as far off the mark as you might think. At least according to New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who points out that in all the ancient manuscripts we have, there are more variations than there are words in the whole New Testament. (Although the majority of them are simply what we now call typos.)

But there are several variant readings that affect the meaning of the verse, and point to very different theological interpretations. The Johannine Comma, for example, which is an extra line or two added to 1 John 5:7-8, that are the only scriptural support for the Trinity. The implication is that they were added for that purpose.

Given the fact that the earliest Christian writings that became the NT were copied by amateur rather than professional scribes, and that the earliest actual documents that we possess are copies of copies of copies of copies, with all the opportunity for errors and revisions that that affords, Cross's joke is not as exaggerated as it seems. (And I've just slain about every bit of humor it held.)
Old 10-24-2015, 02:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquadementia View Post
Men could say the same about women's bodies but mansplaing is looked down on.
Women and their bodies are right here to speak for themselves. Not the same thing as interpreting millennia of writings and their journeys to modern language and editions.
Old 10-24-2015, 02:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As an atheist, here's how I'd answer -- "Because religion is fascinating and hugely important in the world. It's had huge impacts on human history and continues to do so. It's a big influence in most people's lives. It's almost an endlessly fascinating topic."
Or... "We'll shut up when you do."
Old 10-24-2015, 02:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 33,152
When you quote it out of context, to someone who probably has no idea who David Cross is, they're going to take you literally. And what he said is factually wrong. The books that became the Bible may have been edited as they were passed down. But all translations try to go back to the original source as best they can. They do not edit the translation and then translate the translation. The Bible we have today is as close as we can get to the original given the data we have. That's not at all like the game of Telephone.

As for what she said, I think you guys are ignoring the context. She's responding to a post that appears to be about mocking the religion of others. On Facebook, where you're ostensibly talking to your friends. And apparently, not only to friends who aren't literalist Christians.

Of course atheists can be fascinated by religion. Of course they can learn about it to understand the religious people around them. But it is indeed strange that many atheists spend more time mocking religion that most religious people spend actually talking about their religion.

Essentially, she's mocking you (via proxy of "atheists") because she perceives your post as mocking her via proxy of "Christians.")

So my response would be something along the lines of "Oh, that's a joke I find funny. I'm not saying anything bad about Christians. I don't like it when Christians mock atheists, so I'd be a hypocrite to mock Christians."
Old 10-24-2015, 03:59 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 3,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
When you quote it out of context, to someone who probably has no idea who David Cross is, they're going to take you literally. And what he said is factually wrong. The books that became the Bible may have been edited as they were passed down. But all translations try to go back to the original source as best they can. They do not edit the translation and then translate the translation. The Bible we have today is as close as we can get to the original given the data we have. That's not at all like the game of Telephone.
But that's the serious point behind the joke - we don't have the originals. Nor the copies of the originals, nor the copies of copies. Yeah, modern translations - some modern translations - try to get back to the earliest sources we have. But we really don't know what those originals were.

And it's unquestionable that later translators and copiers of the Bible added and subtracted from the text; see my comment about the Johannine Comma in post #43. Or the different ways that (some) Protestants and Catholics number the Ten Commandments. Or even exclude whole books from the canon.

The Bible is a human document that has been copied and recopied, printed and reprinted, translated and retranslated into hundreds of languages, for three thousand years. Of course it's been altered; it's almost impossible for it not to have been. So yeah, it's fair to compare it to a game of telephone.
Old 10-24-2015, 04:01 PM
"Superstar"
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 18,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
When you quote it out of context, to someone who probably has no idea who David Cross is, they're going to take you literally. And what he said is factually wrong. The books that became the Bible may have been edited as they were passed down. But all translations try to go back to the original source as best they can. They do not edit the translation and then translate the translation. The Bible we have today is as close as we can get to the original given the data we have. That's not at all like the game of Telephone.

As for what she said, I think you guys are ignoring the context. She's responding to a post that appears to be about mocking the religion of others. On Facebook, where you're ostensibly talking to your friends. And apparently, not only to friends who aren't literalist Christians.

Of course atheists can be fascinated by religion. Of course they can learn about it to understand the religious people around them. But it is indeed strange that many atheists spend more time mocking religion that most religious people spend actually talking about their religion.

Essentially, she's mocking you (via proxy of "atheists") because she perceives your post as mocking her via proxy of "Christians.")

So my response would be something along the lines of "Oh, that's a joke I find funny. I'm not saying anything bad about Christians. I don't like it when Christians mock atheists, so I'd be a hypocrite to mock Christians."
That's what you got from her friend's comment? That she was playfully teasing back?
Old 10-24-2015, 04:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You should agree with her, and tell her how sick and tired you are of your long, cross-country drives where you can get nothing on your AM radio except atheists trying to raise money by assuring donors that through their generosity, they will not get to heaven.
You are totally right about how tiresome it is the hear atheist constantly badger you for money on the radio but calling new episodes of "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" heaven is a little much. I mean it's good, but without Paula Poundstone...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
Women and their bodies are right here to speak for themselves. Not the same thing as interpreting millennia of writings and their journeys to modern language and editions.
Well, put it this way, I may not spend a whole lot of time thinking about feminism but I think I know a little bit more about it then people that devote their lives to it, sweetie.
Old 10-24-2015, 04:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,542
"given to kings for them to take their favorite parts out"
I presume that refers to James I of England and Ireland and VI of Scotland? Why would the Pope work on the famously Protestant KJV?

Otherwise, a subset of religion believes that it is the True Work of God™, but many treat it as a good moral guide but not 100% true.

Your mistake (you and your friend) is to make discussion on Facebook. Or politics. Or conspiracy theories. Or cat pictures.
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: [email protected].

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: blasting caps store brand sodas ugly girlporn could you kindly homogeneous country cyanide capsules skopje pronunciation slew footed motorcycles are annoying muslim kebab floor hand sander ear syringe cvs why sao sucks 1400 baud modem lollipop kid 486 cpu rikaloff vodka review elemental systems replace wall heater lightly armored knight serval attacks truffle flavor slack clothing no birth certificate walgreens detox thc sunoco decals zipless fucks woot bags propane ice melter wind up victrola rifftrax cloverfield behind ear smell lotus santizing system transition lens review interactual player windows 10 won't work products only available in america the shins new slang meaning what does an s video cable do masturbation in the army happy dan, the whistling dog male vs female golden retriever medela symphony battery pack rotary phones still work garden party lyrics meaning rashida jones boston public business casual rolled up sleeves panic attack without anxiety devon wilson jimi hendrix belgian waffle maker vs regular why does my cat only like me how to build a generator enclosure sabrina lloyd why did she leave numbers i can't fucking breathe can i go back in time and start over navy seals drown proofing test can i put marinade in the crockpot nice to meet you too in french michael jordan gambling wiki behandla wood treatment oil is it illegal to keep someones mail what does cigarette smoke smell like who's the boss community dad gives daughter massage soda and sore throat to prevent shock connect what wire first delivered to wrong address does chelsea clinton have secret service protection now