Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

AllFiredUp; Irony be thy name

This is possibly the most ironic and hysterical comment ever posted at Atheist Central.Blogger

AlFiredUp is talking to Iago about Luke 16:19 - 31 which, I guess, talks about people watching Hell from Heaven.
Iago pointed it out and AllFiredUp tries to dodge it by saying it was a parable. He then expands on his new favourite word by explaining to us poor, hapless atheists how a parable - a story - is different to reality.

You have to read the whole thing to really enjoy the mind-bending stupidity, so here it is in its entirety. I've italicized the word 'parable' for ease of reference and the bolded part is just because, well, just because!

On it's way to FSTDT as we speak, I give you: ALL FIRED UP!
AllFiredUp said...

"Iago said "I can answer that one. Luke Chapter 16:19 - 31.
Again try and actually read your Bible and learn to look things up."

Iago, obviously you've never heard of parable.

Why don't you try that again.

Who told you that this was an actual event?

Where do you draw the line between the parables that Jesus was just telling and this parable? Why would you infer that all of the sudden, this parable was an actual event?

Jesus had been speaking to the crowds with parables, and this is yet another parable, in a line of parables - illustrations to prove a point to the people.

A parable is a story told, specifically to illustrate a spiritual point.

The point of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?

"Social status and material possessions are no guarantee of ones standing with God. The only thing that matters is a right response to the Word of God."

Just because the wealthy man had lots of treasures and riches, made no difference in the afterlife. What made a difference was the humility of heart to hear the words of God and obey them.

And you must do the same.

Ray also uses parables, many many times.

Yet you atheists, who are ultra literal, cannot tell the difference between an illustrative story that is intended to prove a point, and reality. That's how messed up you are."

There it is. It doesn't get any better than that.

Cheers,

Matt

19 comments:

  1. "Yet you atheists, who are ultra literal, cannot tell the difference between an illustrative story that is intended to prove a point, and reality. That's how messed up you are.""

    I pretty much agree. Oftentimes atheists use an ultra-literal interpretation to try to discredit the bible and accuse us of using "context" and "exegesis" when show they are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let me correct. I don't mean all atheists. But it has happened to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes because it is the atheists pushing for a literal translation of the Bible, please try again MFT.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MFT,

    To further what Beams wrote, when discussing religion with theists who go for a literal interpretation of the Bible (I realize that this isn't necessarily your view - but this is Raytractors not MFTractors), how can an atheist possibly be ultra-literal and it be a bad thing? It's all or nothing, right?

    Also, I haven't seen many atheists say that context is a bad thing, we only call theists out when they hide behind 'context' when defending obvious contradictions in Scripture whilst pretending that context doesn't matter when it comes to scientific terms like 'theory'. See Rays recent 'contradictions' posts for plenty of evidence of this.

    Seriously, if you miss the irony of this (AllFiredUp's) comment, then you need to eat more spinach.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MFT, it seems to me that "context" is used inconsistently by the fundamentalists in this forum.

    Scripture is taken out of context to be interpretted in a way that supports the fundamentalist's opinion. When a critic of fundamentalism points to other scriptural "evidence" that contradicts said opinion, he/she is accused of taking the scripture out of context.

    You interpret things as parables when it suits you, and as actual historical fact when it doesn't. And vice versa.

    There's no standard, either. There's no rule that an unbiased person can use to decide whether something should be read literally or not. Christians themselves, FFS, can't even agree with each other on this matter.

    So - why would it surprise you that atheists (and other critics) have trouble figuring out which scripture is factual, and which isn't.

    ---

    AFU is completely bonkers, BTW. He barely is able to string coherent sentences together, let alone writing something that makes an actual point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MF'er,
    Oh, you mean a parable like the parable in Genesis, and The Flood, and the parable of the Exodus and of Jonah living inside a fish, and the tower of babel parable?

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    ReplyDelete
  7. .. As an after thought, MFT, the only way I've ever see you "show ultra literal atheists they are wrong" is to hold up your faith.

    From now on, I'm going to do the same thing. AllFiredUp is mentally deficient, and my proof is that I know it to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have seen fundamentalists use this very passage to make a point about hell. I don't recall a disclaimer that it was a parable and it was open to interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The great problem for believers in bible inerrancy is that if just a single contradiction is realized, the entire foundation of authority disintegrates. For that reason we see such illogical apologetical acrobatics.

    Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it.

    Some people believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome because the Bible says so and the Bible is inerrant. Most people, including most biblical inerrantists, would say they are wrong.

    Claiming inerrancy for a particular view of creation or the flood is no different in principle. Claiming that the Flood account is a true literal account is an error if it was written as an allegory; claiming that it is a true allegory is an error if it was a literal account.

    To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.


    word ver - caltrain

    ReplyDelete
  10. All Fucked Up said:

    "The Bible says what it says until it becomes inconvenient, then it says what I think it says or what I say it says or what some apologist says it says or what my preacher told me it says or..."

    ReplyDelete
  11. MFT said in the "Equal Rights for Christians" thread that I remind him of McCarthy.

    This is the most unheard of
    thing I've ever heard of!

    I'll have you know that I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that are known to be evangelical fundamentalists and who nevertheless are still working
    and shaping the policy
    in Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, that prior post was a parable.

    But you ultra literal bastards obviously cannot tell the difference between an illustrative story that is intended to prove a point, and reality. That's how messed up you are.

    WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I pretty much agree. Oftentimes atheists use an ultra-literal interpretation to try to discredit the bible and accuse us of using "context" and "exegesis" when show they are wrong.

    Come on MFT, you know that "fundies" mean Xtians who think the bible is literal true and not open for reinterpretations. Yet, the moment they want to presume something about the bible they come with lots of very twisted reinterpretations. Exegesis meas, exactly, an extremely liberal reinterpretation of any text in the bible to accommodate whatever the Xtian wants it to mean. What the hell is it then?

    I know you are not a total fundie, but come on. Can't you see the dishonesty of exegesis and apologetics? Or, let us assume you can't, can you at least understand why a person who does not share your beliefs would perceive such acts of reinterpretation as dishonest?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It reminds me of how my mom, while talking about the Da Vinci Code remarked that she couldn't believe that people were taking a work of fiction so seriously. (My mom believes in The Bible.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. BF,

    "I'll have you know that I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that are known to be evangelical fundamentalists and who nevertheless are still working
    and shaping the policy
    in Congress."

    I am sure you do. And I am willing to bet that a good share of them were homeschooled and I would also bet that I can name the top five "colleges" that eighty five percent of them attended.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lance,
    The reaction of the religious right to the release of "The Code" was, and still remains remarkable, and very entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Froggie-

    see http://www.people.ubr.com/political/by-first-name/j/joseph-mccarthy/joseph-mccarthy-quotes/i-have-here-in-my.aspx

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.