Worst abuse of Insane troll logic you've ever seen?

When the bible refers to the evils of "The World" it is believed by biblical scholars that the author meant human society, not all of nature.

That's absurd. If God had meant "human society," he would have said "human society." But he didn't. He said "the world." The Bible is 100% factual and 100% literal! Except when the literal meaning would indicate praise of something I dislike, such as sex or wine. Then it's a metaphor or a bad translation.

God, for an all-knowing being, is a very bad writer.

edited 7th Aug '10 10:19:06 PM by BlackHumor

I don’t know, if we assume he is all knowing, he had his holy scripture written in such a way that people all over the world would interpret his words over 2000 years later that about 1/3rd of the populace is interpreting it in different ways just so they can say they have no problem believing in the guy’s rules.

edited 7th Aug '10 10:34:36 PM by Justice4243

That doesn't seem like a desirable goal, unless God is a troll.

The above statement should not be taken to mean that I find the idea of an omnipotent troll unlikeable or "bad". As a Discordian, it is my firm belief that Goddess is indeed a troll.

edited 7th Aug '10 10:36:04 PM by Tzetze

It depends on what his goals are. If you assume he did that way because he wants to stir up shit, than sure. But his underlining goal seems to be for people not to be asses to each other through following his teachings. At least, according to the J man.

I told that guy that anti-intellectualism was a bad worldview, and he kept on in the same vein:

Are you accusing me or God of being “anti-intellectual”?

I am, btw, an “anti-intellectual.” Rejecting the argument from authority, I must be.

I think I really became an “anti-intellectual” not by reading the Bible, but by reading an old samizdat essay by Solzhenitsyn ( a religious mystic) entitled “The Smatterers.”

@Justice: Um, I don't get how differing interpretations are supposed to help with Love thy Neighbor, can you explain?

If God's end goal is that everyone gets along, it’s the opposite of trolling.

What I mean is that I don't see how deliberately writing sacred texts ambiguously, as you alluded to, would service that goal.

Am I misunderstanding?

If it’s written ambiguously enough that basically anyone can agree with it because there’s no particular belief that’s being challenged from their POV, but everyone agrees on the stuff that’s not ambiguous (don’t be dicks to each other), then the end result is a world in which the greatest tragedy is a semantics debate that never goes away.

So, trolling, but picking the lesser trolls out of two evils.

Well there was this youtube video of this dumb lady talking about homeopathy and e=mc^2. She just dropped the "m" IIRC.

...okay. That makes sense. Though I'm not sure how often "love God" and "love thy neighbor" are actually treated as superior to the other commands. :/

Because Jesus says so and he’s pretty much the authority on such things.

Jesus’s point was that if you do those two things, all the other commandments fall into place. You need to accept God to accept everything that follows (the rest of the Bible) and “Love thy neighbor” is actually pretty general, so stuff like “Don’t kill, don’t covet oxen/ wifes” follow. Keep in mind Jesus decided neighbor meant “everyone in existence”.

edited 7th Aug '10 11:28:19 PM by Justice4243

Nono, I understand that, I'm talking about Christianity in practice.

Oh, I’ll go with “You’re doing it WRONG” for that one.

Though I’ll add that assuming God is a timeless super being, he has all of eternity to pull off a Xanatos Roulette.

I’ll also add this is just an amusing Alternative Character Interpretation for my part.

I've got a new one:

Yes, the real irony is that the same kind of techniques which are used to decide on common ancestry in DNA are used on Biblical manuscripts. Scientists ascribe meaning and intelligent authorship to one, while denying it in the other.

I don't know if it was already mentioned in this thread, but: Any argument equivalent to "The Bible is true, because it says so".

Update: turns out it was.

edited 9th Sep '10 11:13:21 AM by MikeRosoft

That's more of a tautology.

Funnily enough, the only part that says the holy scriptures was true stated that the written words of the prophets where true. This particular potion of the Bible wasn’t written by a prophet so it’s hard to say that it's even tautologically true.

edited 9th Sep '10 2:05:32 PM by Justice4243

@Jeweldragon: WHAT.

Failing science forever doesn't even BEGIN to cover that quote.

How would you even get human DNA for ancestry purposes from a manuscript?

Are they trying to go for finger smudges and snot? Or do they believe it was written in blood?

"According to nuclear resonance snot-dating, this manuscript is from the 4th century."

(I think he's talking about ancestry relationships like that if one early manuscript has an error, then all later manuscripts with that error are probably descended from it. Likewise with animals that share distinctive genes.

But it's ITL in the worst way because ancestry techniques presuppose that one thing came from another and therefore were not independently designed.)

edited 12th Sep '10 6:53:04 PM by jewelleddragon

From FSTDT. It was one of those "Secular Fundie" (which I think is an oxymoron, but that's another story) entries they do every now and again. The entry was something to the effect of: "All religious people are gullible, violent and crazy. They should be locked up in concentration camps." Because...I'm not entirely sure he gave a reason.

Now, that's pretty fucked up, but you've probably heard worse, right? The comments section was filled with about three pages of people agreeing with this guy, and wondering why it was even on the site. And the one's who weren't so happy about it said stuff like "I agreed with him up until the part about concentration camps."

It's probably what sparked my intense dislike of FSTDT.

edited 13th Sep '10 10:27:02 AM by Sober-Irishman

I’d imagine the “lets round up religious people in put them in camps” mandate wouldn’t end as palnned when the proponents realize they’re out numbered by several billion people.

All religious people are gullible, violent and crazy. They should be locked up in concentration camps.

The best part about this is that it doesn't work even if you accept the premises. Which have no evidence o'course~