Penn and Teller: A Helping Hand

I posted this in the Political Palace becuase it is undoubtable going to raise religious/political debate.

http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/39460/ (This is 29 minutes long, so make sure you have the time to spare. Once you start watching, you can't stop.)

What do you think? Personally, I think this is very well done. Also, it isn't one sided whatsoever, as most athiest pursuations are. This has information supporting both sides of the argument, but the fact that one triumphs over the other can only make you think....

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Look, do you think anyone is going to spend half an hour watching a video about some yahoo fifth-rate celebrity's opinions?

Penn Jillette never does anything that isn't one-sided. Don't fool yourself.

Most amazing jew boots

Are you trying to imply that tv magicians aren't an authoritative source of information on this subject?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Look, do you think anyone is going to spend half an hour watching a video

You won't, but that doesn't mean that others won't either.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

about some yahoo fifth-rate celebrity's

That's just your opinion. The fact that you think he is a yahoo fifth-rate celebrity does not mean that the things he has to say are meaningless. If I think you are a yahoo fifth-rate board member, does that mean every other member on these boards will think so aswell? I think not.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

That's true, my opinion that Penn is a smug, manipulative little shit doesn't objectively mean anything. On the other hand, your opinion that he has something to say that any idiot with free time and an agenda couldn't think of for by themselves isn't worth much either.

Gee whiz, the Bible isn't universally true! Holy crap, ALERT THE PRESS

I was speaking idiomatically.

Indeed, something that somebody said in Political Palace is an opinion. Thanks for the clarification, Free.User!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Thanks for the clarification, Free.User!

Hey, don't mention it.

It's just that he was saying other people wouldn't want to see it becuase he thought Teller was "smug"

FELIPE NO

No, if Teller was smug, that would be watchable.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's not really just his opinion, y'see. Penn is a unknown yahoo whose opinion is essentially on the same level as neighbor Tom; most certainly on something as nonconclusive as religion.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

No, if Teller was smug, that would be watchable.

Sorry, my bad. I meant "Pen".

Also, this thread was meant to discuss points brought up in the movie.... so....


How ya doing, buddy?

The anti-bible guy made good arguments, as did the pro-bible guy (names escape me). Penn and Teller were incorperated solely so that people would watch. Nothing sways opinions better than celebrity faces.

"We need more atheists, and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible"
Well yeah, if you read it with that attitude.

What many people fail to realize is that the Bible's role on today's society is meant to give people advice on how to live one's life to the fullest. Jesus taugh love, compassion, non-violence, and non-corruption, i think alot of the world could use way more of all of the above.

"Stone disobediant children."
It's a law of a society thousands of years old. Our society is constantly changing and evolving with the times. How many differences can you see between our time, and ancient times? Who said the Bible was vague? Penn right? Did he take into account that that passage never described what Disobediant was supposed to mean there. My guess, is probably the performing of a sin worthy of death. Penn automatically assumes that a child deserves a stoning if they steal a cookie, all in the name of defaming the bible. Seriously, that argument has no place here.

Yeah sure the bible has conflicting messages. It says practice non-violence, it also tells tales of how God ordered there to be war. Yes people are allowed to pick and choose, it's their right that comes along with free will. You can choose to live a life of peace, you can choose to live a life of violence, you can choose to committ freaking suicide if you want.

I bet Penn felt pretty good up there rattling some cages, and feeling like a big man. That had so much potential, but Penn ruined it by turning it into a disrespectful pile of shit.

No bias huh? Gee, i'm glad Penn was so open to both sides, aren't you?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Helloween

No bias huh? Gee, i'm glad Penn was so open to both sides, aren't you?

What I meant was that the video gives chances for both sides to speak. Most athiest pursuations don't even go that far. Whether or not Pen made a *insert word here* of it or not is a different issue.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Helloween

Did he take into account that that passage never described what Disobediant was supposed to mean there. My guess, is probably the performing of a sin worthy of death.

In all fairness, with MOST books we assume that the words they use conform to standard meanings. "Disobedient" is a word that has a meaning. That meaning has nothing to do with levels of severity. If you read the word "disobedient" in any other book, you'd know what it meant. Why shouldn't we expect the same level of clarity in a book meant to tell us how to live our lives?

It's entirely possible that the original Hebrew used a word with a greater level of interpretability, but as the modern version of the passage reads it DOES state that the kid should be stoned if he's disobedient, and "disobedience" does indeed carry all the way down to the cookie jar.

Bashing Christianity on the basis of the Old Testament is a little wrongheaded anyway, of course.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Bashing Christianity on the basis of the Old Testament is a little wrongheaded anyway, of course.

How do you figure? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know what you think.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Bashing Christianity on the basis of the Old Testament is a little wrongheaded anyway, of course.

Of course, just trying to give reasons why.

But seriously, remeber that the Bible has been translated so many times, into so many languages. You don't suppose that a massive game of telephone won't skew the origional message do you?

Seeing as how they'd stone an adult for stuff like Adultry, and not stealing a loaf of bread, i think it's pretty safe to say that a child with their hand in the cookie jar will get slap on the wrist, and the stones will stay on the ground.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Free.User

How do you figure?

Well, I look at it like this.

Say there's this awesome band, right? Everyone loves this band, they rock so hard. But it turns out that both the singer and the band's drummer used to be in a different band, and that band SUCKED! The old band is still part of the new band's history in a way, but it sounded nothing like the new band does. However, now people are refusing to buy the new band's albums because they remember how much they hated the old band!

I don't feel like looking up the exact passage, but Christ did basically state something to the effect that his teachings effectively "overwrote" old traditions on the same subjects — and we all know that passage about Christ's attitude toward stone-throwing ("He that is without sin", etc). THEREFORE, it is ridiculous to assert that Christians (People who follow Christ and seek to be Christlike) would see stone-throwing as anything but a historical absurdity. If Christ says "don't do that" then doing it isn't Christian, and bashing Christianity based upon it is stupid.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. --Matthew 5:17

What this means is that although Jesus is not suggesting that the Law was wrong or unnecessary, He has taken care of all of our obligations toward it, if we follow Him. It's no longer necessary for anyone to live under Mosaic Law.

Quote:

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. --Hebrews 8:13

Self explanatory.

Quote:

But seriously, remeber that the Bible has been translated so many times, into so many languages. You don't suppose that a massive game of telephone won't skew the origional message do you?

I can see this misconception is never going to be reversed, no matter how hard anyone tries, but here goes.

It has been translated into every world language but not sequentially, which is almost what you're making it sound like. We have texts in Greek which date back to the first century. There are some fragments which possibly could have been read by people who actually witnessed some of the events they talk about. Any new Bible you see if translated directly from the oldest (first centry) manuscripts we have.

And about telephone. Let me remind you that for the longest time, the oldest copy of the Old Testament we had dated back to 900 AD. Then, suddenly, we discovered the Dea Sea Scrolls and the writing was nearly identical. That's over 1000 years the text has survived without any of the effects of a telephone game.

It may seem odd that the culture of the OT was harsh, but look at the culture in that part of the world today. It's not even all that much more civilized. Somehow, in a place where people still get their hands cut off for stealing, I can believe anything you tell me they did over 4000 years ago.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Helloween

Seeing as how they'd stone an adult for stuff like Adultry, and not stealing a loaf of bread, i think it's pretty safe to say that a child with their hand in the cookie jar will get slap on the wrist, and the stones will stay on the ground.

I was always under the impression that stealing a loaf of bread was ok if you needed it to survive, but not just because you felt like some bread. Seems a cookie would fall under the 'You don't really need it' category. Therefore being a luxury item, a cookie stealer should be stoned (well, back in the day).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

It's almost impossible for anyone today to really understand what their society was like. It was brutal. Stealing food might not seem like such a big deal to us, but it wasn't so easy to survive back then. Sometimes stealing someone's food at the wrong time could endanger their lives or the lives of their relatives. I can see how it would be a serious offense.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Hmm.. this is all interesting. I don't know heaps about this subject, so it's nice to hear what you are all saying. I am actually starting to read the Davinci Code, and I speculate it will be a good read.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Minion

It's almost impossible for anyone today to really understand what their society was like. It was brutal. Stealing food might not seem like such a big deal to us, but it wasn't so easy to survive back then. Sometimes stealing someone's food at the wrong time could endanger their lives or the lives of their relatives. I can see how it would be a serious offense.

Of course it'd be serious. And that's why it would only be acceptable if it were to keep yourself/family from starving. Which precludes things like a child taking a cookie, you ain't eating that cookie as a matter of life or death.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Well, a cookie is a luxury. People didn't have luxuries back then. Misappropriation of the food supply could be a serious issue and harsh laws may have been needed as a deterrent. No one really knows how often any of these laws were enforced, if ever, by the way.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Kings were also kind of not subject to law.

FELIPE NO

On top of the point the Penn makes about it, I like how the Red Sea/Reed Sea "solution" to Moses parting what ever body of water it was falls apart when you're not speaking English.

The words "red" and "reed" probably aren't spelled or pronounced that similarly in most other languages.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'd like to see the passage in the Bible where Jesus says, "Hey guys, it's totally ok to steal if you're hungry."

I'm assuming it isn't there, because I've heard Jesus come out of my grandpa's tape player practically every day. I know the book of Mathew practically by heart, at this point.

As for the Reed Sea, a lot of what happened in the Old Testament regarding the Exodus and such can be explained using military logic. I saw it on the History Channel, interesting stuff.

The end result is that you have people attributing sound judgement to acts of God. Which could be interpreted as being something instilled by God in men. We all know what happened to Odysseus, after all.

Of course, one must also take into consideration that the Bible itself is more a library pieced together by the Romans. So, assuming that the Bible is a sham, or at least parts of it are, that doesn't mean that other gospels aren't legitimate.

Jam it back in, in the dark.