1
9
10

Skeptics Annotated Bible-Free (Down from 4.99) for iOS (itunes.apple.com)

submitted by Nuthin2Hide

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JohannGralog 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I can't believe they asked money for this in the first place. It can be funny when it's not trying too hard, but it's hardly a proper critical commentary.

I hope the creator will at least use the profit obtained so far to update the website's lay-out.

[–]Jonnycakes22 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

I haven't looked through the SAB in-depth, but the way I see it is it lists every niggling flaw in the Bible, and you can go through and decide how picky you are going to be. There are Christians who cast aside Biblical errors by interpretational contortions, so why shouldn't we have a Biblical interpretation that is deliberately error-inclusive? The SAB definitely needs some work, but it is a really great resource, and one that I think should be supported.

[–]JohannGralog 2 ポイント3 ポイント

The SAB is an understandable reaction to bible-ignorant fundamentalists, but it also casts aside centuries of biblical interpretation and criticism by people who were (and are) by no means ignorant of the bible. This might be sceptical, but is by no means academic, and in its worst examples a prime contributor to those contortions in the pursuit of snark.

The SAB is a reaction, it succeeds in ridiculing biblical literalism. The interpretation and criticism it casts aside is cast aside by these literalists as well. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent development. For that majority of christians either loosely interpreting the bible, or following traditions predating American fundamentalism, this just doesn't apply as it responds to claims they never made.

It can be a great resource depending on what you want out of it. If you debate with fundamentalists on the internet, and want to confront them with questions they have never considered at all? That's a great use, I suppose. But for a serious critique, one should look into textual criticism or higher criticism.

[–]Jonnycakes22 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

In academia these points are valid, but even conceding a loose biblical interpretation by the general populace and ignoring fundamentalism still leaves us with people giving some historical credence to the Bible, particularly to the gospels. Dismissing criticism of the accuracy of the Bible as irrelevant is to ignore how the masses treat the Bible.

The SAB certainly has a mocking tone, but it is pretty good at pointing out inaccuracies and contradictions, and serves well as a testament to the I reliability of the Bible as a literal historical document. This is certainly valid outside of Internet forum debates.

[–]JohannGralog 2 ポイント3 ポイント

The bible has some historical credence. Even if it hadn't, I hardly see how those people giving such credence to the bible are any problem or concern. Is the goal to obtain knowledge or to convert?

The latter seems to be the goal of the SAB, seeing as it does not merely seeks inaccuracies, but also seeks moral judgment. The introduction does not speak of inaccuracy but of embarrassment. In the FAQ, the author states that "contradictions are the least of the Bible's problems".

[–]Jonnycakes22 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Yes, the Bible has some historical credence, but even liberal Christians give it way more credibility than it earns. People giving the Bible such credence inform their beliefs through the Bible, and these beliefs motivate actions, like preaching against condom use in Africa, lobbying against homosexual rights, and fighting stem cell research. This is pretty obvious stuff.

[–]JohannGralog 2 ポイント3 ポイント

And those issues have everything to do with morality, and nothing with inaccuracy.

For what it's worth, the same people who preach against condom use (not only in Africa) also preach against sexual relations before marriage. The stem cell controversy involves embryonic stem cells, and homosexual rights are not solely a religious (let alone a christian) issue. These issues are in reality always a lot more nuanced than short headlines can convey.

[–]Jonnycakes22 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Denying that religion is the primary, if not only, motivator for these issues is

[–]JohannGralog 1 ポイント2 ポイント

The People's Republic of China. Homosexual activity was only decriminalized a few decades ago, same-sex marriages are still not recognized. On the other end of the spectrum, Italian fascism.

[–]Jonnycakes22 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

For what it's worth, the same people who preach against condom use (not only in Africa) also preach against sexual relations before marriage.

Yes, and that is another big problem as well!

The stem cell controversy involves embryonic stem cells

Which is still a big problem-are you actually defending this point?

homosexual rights are not solely a religious (let alone a christian) issue.

The religious aspect of anti-homosexuality in the US is so nearly completely motivated by Christianity that it is essentially pointless to mention other religions in that context. The non-religious arguments boil down to religious objections or homophobia. This issue is more nuanced than Christianity-fueled anti-homosexuality, but not much-religion is a huge driving factor in the anti-gay movement.

And those issues have everything to do with morality, and nothing with inaccuracy.

The issues I brought up are fueled primarily or solely by religion, and while they are moral issues, they stem from the Bible and Christianity. Here is a hypothetical, analogous example: Let's say there is a religion called Greenism. Greenist doctrine states that all black children are evil and will only bring suffering to the world. When the now epidemic of killing black children is brought up, people state that "These killings have nothing to do with inaccuracies of Greenist doctrine, and everything to do with morality."

This is indeed a moral issue, but it is obviously fueled primarily or entirely by Greenist doctrine. Similarly, the anti-gay agenda is most definitely fueled by Christian doctrine, and merely pointing out that denying gay rights is immoral does not separate the issue from Christianity. Denying religion's involvement in these issues is delusional.

[–]Jonnycakes22 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

For what it's worth, the same people who preach against condom use (not only in Africa) also preach against sexual relations before marriage.

Yes, and that is another big problem as well!

The stem cell controversy involves embryonic stem cells

Which is still a big problem-are you actually defending this point?

homosexual rights are not solely a religious (let alone a christian) issue.

The religious aspect of anti-homosexuality in the US is so nearly completely motivated by Christianity that it is essentially pointless to mention other religions in that context. The non-religious arguments boil down to religious objections or homophobia. This issue is more nuanced than Christianity-fueled anti-homosexuality, but not much-religion is a huge driving factor in the anti-gay movement.

And those issues have everything to do with morality, and nothing with inaccuracy.

The issues I brought up are fueled primarily or solely by religion, and while they are moral issues, they stem from the Bible and Christianity. Here is a hypothetical, analogous example: Let's say there is a religion called Greenism. Greenist doctrine states that all black children are evil and will only bring suffering to the world. When the now epidemic of killing black children is brought up, people state that "These killings have nothing to do with inaccuracies of Greenist doctrine, and everything to do with morality."

This is indeed a moral issue, but it is obviously fueled primarily or entirely by Greenist doctrine. Similarly, the anti-gay agenda is most definitely fueled by Christian doctrine, and merely pointing out that denying gay rights is immoral does not separate the issue from Christianity. Denying religion's involvement in these issues is delusional.

[–]JohannGralog 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Yes, and that is another big problem as well!

That depends on your point of view.

Which is still a big problem-are you actually defending this point?

Did I state that?

The religious aspect of anti-homosexuality in the US is so nearly completely motivated by Christianity that it is essentially pointless to mention other religions in that context. The non-religious arguments boil down to religious objections or homophobia. This issue is more nuanced than Christianity-fueled anti-homosexuality, but not much-religion is a huge driving factor in the anti-gay movement.

The United States is not the entire world. The concept of a "Traditional Family" is what fuels both Maoist and Fascist thought in this matter.

The issues I brought up are fueled primarily or solely by religion

Which is debatable.

moral issues

Which also raises the questions by what morality or ethics religion should be judged. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Here is a hypothetical, analogous example

To which I raise the objection that it is a false analogy. What major denomination states that all homosexuals are evil? Roman Catholicism, the largest christian denomination in the world (and in the United States too, iirc), and a major world player in this issue, has no such harsh words about homosexuals.

Denying religion's involvement in these issues is delusional.

Which I never did.