We need some controversy. [MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTOKGBpXc1o&mode=related&search=[/MEDIA]
nobody really pays attention to the bible, even christians. they just do what they are told and try not to learn anything that would shatter their fantasies.
the Bible is similar to Aesop's Fables in my opinion.....just a bunch of stories which were handed down over the generations and compiled to be a guide of how people should live their lives. Nobody knows what is really on the other side after you die, so that is why most of us find comfort in believing in a Christ, God, Allah, Buddah, etc.............but I think it is idiotic to take everything the Bible says as truths.
armchair psychology: it is apparent to most people that religion is nonsense, the question is whether or not they can accept it. 157 is a good case study. he is clearly smart enough to see through the lies, but emotionally he cannot accept anything that he doesnt like. red is an atheist, but think that people who are atheists are considered to be pompous jerks, so he claims to be an agnostic. if pressed he puts together some weak claim about some vague god of no description that he believes in. hs basic argument is "creation must have been created by something, i believe in whatever created creation". tirk and sabanfan are both candidates to be atheists, but being solid and loyal dudes, they dont see any point in rocking the boat. everyone they know and respect has always been christian, and they dont figure they are too good for the mentality of everyone else (even though they are). salty and sourdough are old-school good americans and they have the idea of god and country so deeply fixed together in their head that to question it wouldnt be something they would feel comfortable about. they would feel guilty and unpatriotic about not sticking with the beliefs they think are the core of this great country. there are others like nolimitmd and mesquite who seem to know what is up but are not admitting it because they dont want to get involved.
I've seen this episode. I noticed it's the only one where their opponent is the most reasonable, and at some points never addressed his arguments. Martin, put me in the God cheering section.
Their arguments only hold water when talking to fundamentalists. I think most believers recognize the books of the Bible were written to a specific audience and with a specific purpose. Most of the book is not meant to be taken literally.
Whether you take it literally or not, whether you are a fundamentalist or not, one of their other points was that Christians pick & chose what they take from the bible. There are many morals and lessons you could take from the bible, and many of them are not very good. This is more what I was looking for commentary on.
But Penn and Teller are doing the same thing. They take passages that make their argument and push them not considering the universal point, the audience, the historical timeframe, or the context of what is being said.
There point was that there are parts of the bible that do not teach lessons many would approve of. They specifically said that they were not taken out of context (although I did not look them up to check for myself) & of course they are going to only use the passages that prove their point. Would you like to clarify the audience, historical timeframe and/or context that takes away from what they said? The bible is supposed to be a timeless book of reference for christians - I do not see how the audience or historical timeframe should interfere with that.
