Slashdot Mirror

His days shall be an hundred and twenty years. - "His days" are the days of man, not the individual, but the race, with whom the Lord still strives. Hence, they refer to the duration, not of the life of an individual, but of the existence of the race. From this we learn that the narrative here reverts to a point of time before the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, recorded in the close of the preceding passage as there were only a hundred years from their birth to the deluge. This is according to the now well-known method of Scripture, when it has two lines of events to carry on. The former narrative refers to the godly portion of mankind; this to the ungodly remnant.

Not forever will the Lord strive with man; but his longsuffering will still continue for one hundred and twenty years. Meanwhile he does not leave himself or his clemency without a witness. He sent Noah with the message of warning, who preached by his voice, by his walking with God, and also by his long labor and perseverance in the building of the ark. The doomed race, however, filled up the measure of their iniquity, and when the set number of years was accomplished, the overwhelming flood came.

Taken in context of Genesis (as a whole) it would seem that "yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years" means something quite different.
[Source]

You harken back to the old days that never were. And did you ever stop to think that records of gay marriages in the past were destroyed by the church in order to keep their handhold on the institution?

No doubt they were destroyed at the same time they destroyed all of the records of marriages to space aliens.

How the fuck do you know what went in 5000 years ago?

If only there were some records..... if only...

And how the fuck is that relevant today?

'Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; -- Zechariah 8:17 (580+ BCE)
"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. -- Leviticus 19:18 (1270+ BCE)

That still seems sound.

In short, you win the award for Biggest Piece Of Shit Of The Day.

So you don't support the idea of civil discourse then?

I think you've confused "atheism" with "puritanism

No, he didn't. A Christian isn't afraid to die, whether Puritan or Protestant; a Christian looks forward to it. "The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." -- John 12:25.

OTOH, an athiest believes that when you die, you cease to exist. As evolution has us fearing death, an athiest should naturally fear it more than someone who doesn't believe that death is death, and would take better care of his health.

For Direct Current (DC): P=I*V=I^2*R=V^2/R. P is power, I is current, V is voltage, and R is resistance.

And since power corrupts, and corruption leads to sin [citation needed], and the wages of sin is death, I think the conclusion is that DC can kill you.

So?

I figure that if one has the position that accepting things on faith makes sense, that ought to extend to other people doing the same, even if they disagree.

Sure it does, that's how we know history. What I'm saying is that WE KNOW Egypt WOULD NOT have reported such a thing if their behavior is consistent at all. So, we wouldn't EXPECT this to have been reported... so that it isn't is no surprise (and lends no weight to your claim).

No, it's not needed. There's more to look at than writings. People don't leave their environment undisturbed and leave traces. And assuming Egypt somehow avoided recording anything about all this, there still would be archaelogical evidence, and the neighbours would still have noticed, and have plenty time to make good use of the situation.

The effects would be very noticeable. If such a thing happened, Egypt would have been dealt a huge blow. Massive amounts of death leave traces, even if nobody writes them down.

We're talking here about: unusable water, all the fish in the Nile dead, rotting animals and people everywhere, lots of insects, ruined harvest, dead livestock, lots of dead people, and no army. Add to that half a million people that suddenly vanished. The immediate aftermath would involve yet more massive amounts of death from starvation and illness.

By all rights, Egypt should have been in an enormous crisis that would at the very least critically cripple the country for generations. It would give anybody a terrific opportunity to invade and conquer Egypt. Yet again, it didn't happen.

First, from my understanding, this was one city/region in Egypt, not all of Egypt. Second, I'm not sure how it would have left ample evidence. That was a long time ago.

Archaeology, for instance.

- Not true. First, you should know that even among Biblical scholars, the numbers (population size) are disputed, BASED on the text (not just liberal skepticism).

Bible disagrees. In multiple translations.

More info here

how can you sacrifice 3 chickens when http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/5-14.htm the biggest cult religion in the world says we are all dead.

Galileo's publications on the heliocentric model were censored by the church. Even around this time, people used passages from the Bible to argue that the earth was flat and immovable. These are the same passages that are used by the Flat Earth believers, which I'm sure you've seen already.

By the way, "scientific" observation (pre-classical greek scientists, indian scientists (200s?), somewhat recent chinese scientists {1600s?}, etc) has been used to explain that the earth is flat too. Poor instruments (human eyes), poor observations (ground level), poor model (earth far larger than assumed), ...

Yes, and our knowledge was updated when it was proven wrong. It's a contrast to the unchanging word of god which requires 'interpretation' for it to make sense.

The fact that god has not returned to clarify things now that we have a greater level of sophistication says nothing. My understanding is that he is more of a scorekeeper right now, not an active player.

What is your understanding of god acting as a scorekeeper based on? Scorekeeper of what, anyway?

Besides, what is the necessity, we are learning to figure it out. Perhaps that is part of the plan, our evolution? :-)

What was the necessity of god to speak in metaphor to the sheep herder about universal mechanics? It would have been much more useful for him to tell the sheep herder how to better care for his sheep! :P

When you start interpreting parts of the Bible to mean different things, you start abstracting the base of your faith. This allows you to extend the ideas of that god beyond what the holy book actually says and start making interpretations about god's personality, behavior, actions, and supposed plans for humanity. A lot of these things that you've mentioned, from him acting as a scorekeeper for some divine plan for us to him whispering truths about the universe in metaphor to a shepherd, are vague because they're based on that abstraction. You can't justify these particular beliefs of yours with passages in context, so they have to be invented through the 'interpretation'. This is something that god himself warns about; this passage is used by many different Christians to show that those who change the meaning of the Bible will be punished personally by their god.

Wikipedia says Ron Paul is a Christian. If he is, he's a hypocrite. His bible says pay your taxes. It's also kind of rough on the greedy and the selfish. Personally, I don't mind my tax money going to the poor; it might keep them from robbing me. I'm very much against welfare to the rich, like oil industry and farm subsidies. Giving them money never did keep them from robbing me.

2 Chronicles 4:2

In the KJV, the biblical "value" of 3 for pi is clearly indicated to be an approximation:

Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

(Emphasis added)

If this is some sort of "holy book" "intelligent design" thing where the bible says pi is actually 3, then I can't help you there...

2 Chronicles 4:2

Well, everyone can get legalistic about all this stuff, but that's how the Pharisees and Sadducees came to be. Do you suppose that there is no such thing in our modern times? I think that a lot of label-only Christians could be labeled accurately in such a manner. The majority wants to believe whatever happens to be convenient for their own image, but that doesn't make their belief true. Salvation is not a democratic process - you're not saved based upon a popularity contest.

When you read into Paul's writings in the New Testament, the point is: When you're saved, you've been redeemed, and you can't do something to condemn yourself, with the exception of denying God (like renouncing your faith). That's pretty universally agreed upon by Bible scholars. It's not something you earn by following the rules, like you guys seem to be arguing about. Even if you don't love other people the way you love yourself, even if you don't spend nearly as much time with God as you should, even if you still are imperfect and commit sins, you are still saved by grace. (See 1 Corinthians 10:23: http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-23.htm ) Now that doesn't excuse you, you're not SUPPOSED to live like that. So you don't earn your salvation and can't lose it by failing to do something. It's given freely based upon whether you accept it or not. That's what sets Christianity apart from other religions. God's a fair judge, though, so I wouldn't expect to get off so easy when you meet up someday if you get "saved" and then choose to live in opposition to the commandments anyway. It doesn't really make sense for someone who's truly a Christ follower to live like that, so it's questionable whether you're just applying a label to feel good if you live like that. Sad and difficult realization for some? Like maybe the rich man who couldn't get over his money and possessions because he liked them too much to trade them for eternal life with Jesus? (Mark 10:17-31 or parallel transcriptions in Matthew and Luke) We're going to see a lot of people in the situation described in Luke 13:23-27, where people try to convince God that they should be allowed into heaven because of whatever superficial label or reason they had, and he'll say "Depart from me, I never knew you." Those are quite possibly the millions or billions you're referring to and many more throughout history, unfortunately, and the rest of us aren't doing a very good job teaching new believers about this stuff. It's partly our fault for being poor teachers and poor examples.

Within Christianity, there are even different denominations based upon interpretations of the rules. Outside of Christianity, you get the same fanboy stuff. I like one sports team, someone else likes another. American league, National league, you could prefer one set of rules over the other and root for your favorite league in the World Series. Is it about who's right? No, it's about transforming lives by salvation. That's the bottom line. And we're not doing it right. We're getting too caught up splitting hairs over ALL the rules. If you follow Jesus with your entire being, you shouldn't even have to think about the rules, because you'll already be living within them. It's the fruit of the Spirit, right? Anyone who lives like that should have no problem with laws, except those which outlaw the practice of Christianity.

I've responded to the jot and tittle objection three times above. Read my posts above so I don't repeat myself.

The NT definitely supersedes the OT - for example, we do not require people to be circumcised in order to be Christian. All this was settled way back in the time of the Apostles.

This has an interesting commentary on the Law:
http://bible.cc/galatians/3-19.htm

The interesting bit is that my summary of the NT (these are the most important things, all else are details) was an intentional mirror of a similar statement made by Maimonides, the greatest Jewish scholar of the middle ages. Maimonides, incidentally, was also a firm believer that there was no conflict between science and religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonidies#Negative_theology) which is relevant to the premise of this entire thread.

most of us realize that religion inspires good as well as evil

If it doesn't inspire more good than evil, then once you factor in the intellectual dishonesty of religion, it becomes a net evil. Depending on the good/evil ratio, this may be true even if religion inspires more good than evil.

As for myself, I feel obliged to speak out against religion, since for so much of human history, people were killed for doing so, or at least so oppressed by religion that they wouldn't dare to.

Most agnostics are too chickenshit to stand up for rational thought (and be ostracized by the faithful), but they don't mind reaping the benefits of scientific progress. In case you don't see the contradiction, religious belief is at odds with the law of parsimony, a key principle of the scientific method.

Enjoy your air conditioning, inoculation, and internet while thumbing your nose at the mindset that produced them. It's a very safe position, and taking it risks nothing.

A semirelevant sidestory for your contemplation:
  Women's suffrage in the United States was born partially out of the debate over whether women should be allowed to use anesthesia during childbirth. Most Christian ministers said no, since the book of Genesis is quite clear that childbirth and suffering are entwined by divine mandate.

The story is repeated again and again throughout the history of organized religion: The shamans overstep their authority, their flock says, in effect, "Hell no, good sir." and the shamans retire to lick their wounds while they spin some way to change their mind without admitting they were wrong. Heck, given 500 years or so, they even admitted that the Sun, and not the Earth, was the center of the solar system. The faithful masses never notice this pattern, because religions discourage the faculties of critical thinking. "I have faith" is just a way of saying, "I won't change my mind, no matter what evidence surfaces."

We're at the point now where Christianity has largely become a toothless tiger, but it is important to never forget how hard it was to pull those teeth, and also to remember that if the priesthood had its way, we would still be exorcising the demons from left-handed people, burning witches (that's everyone who isn't a Christian), and paying a tax for not attending church.

The Lord's book has foretold just this event, promised to occur just as Jesus Christ our savior returns to reign on earth as King of kings.

Or, the way I prefer to think about it: "Last call for fornicating and altar boy fondling! The party ends in five minutes. So satisfy your sinful urges one last time, and start moving towards the door. Oh yeah, and don't forget to step into the confessional on your way out."

He showed all apparent seriousness in the belief that the apocalyptic end of history was Coming Real Soon Now

What the fuck?

http://bible.cc/matthew/24-36.htm

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,f but only the Father.

And, moments before in Matthew 24-34, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Unless you want to put the world "generation" on the rack and really get your exegesis on, he is providing a fairly tight upper bound. He is, as you say, explicitly saying that no more detailed information is available within that bound; but the passing of a generation, best case, is the work of just over a century. That doesn't tell you how to allocate your sick days in order to take advantage of the coming kingdom of god; but it qualifies as "Real Soon Now" by the standards of the end of history....

Unless you have done the experiments yourself the only confirmation of the theory of relativity you have is whatever your village elders of choice told you.

Except that one group of village elders actively encourages you to experiment and even provides instructions, while the other group provides you with Matthew 4:7.

The more complicated a theory is, the more resource-intensive the experiments will be. Nonetheless, you do have an option to perform these experiments yourself if you can afford the resources or join and organization that can.

And this is why it failed. Because the courts aren't stupid, and were able to recognize this "religion" for what it is. A mockery of real religions by assholes who just want an excuse to steal things.

Yeah! Besides, their ideology of this commie copying is itself a ripoff of another religion!

And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

http://bible.cc/john/6-11.htm

No extreme societal control? http://niv.scripturetext.com/leviticus/20.htm Nothing in the Old Testament is mandatory anymore? http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm

In short he gets to pull Ballmer's strings, but not vice versa.

...

Orthogonal issue + rambling. You claimed Microsoft *pushed* Netflix to use Silverlight. How?

...

In short, you'll hear about it from Microsoft when they decide to discontinue support. And when you hear about it, you'll have 1 year to act, from that point. And you'll have paid support options past that date if you choose to use it. Suggest you stop spreading disinformation.

1. He pulls Ballmer's strings? Since when has anyone pulled Ballmer's strings? The CEO of Google was on Apple's board, did he pull Job's strings? If you think that, you are delusional.

2. Pushed, as in Microsoft had an inside man who had a conflict of interest. His "favor" was to MS over Adobe. The CEO made a choice that was against that of his customers (you can call it rambling, but when thousands of customers are simultaneously "rambling" it is usually a bad sign). The Netflix boards were filled with hate when this change came. But the CEO pulled the party line. He did so because, regardless of what happens with Netflix, the stock holders pull his strings at Microsoft (of which Gates, Ballmer, and others hold far more than him... which is why your strings analogy is completely wrong.) You aren't on the board of MS and a CEO at Netflix and say you're going to be impartial to your other master. Even an uneducated hobo understood the concept of not being able to serve two masters without screwing one of them over. The CEO of Google also understood this as well. Obviously, you do not.

2. You ignored, completely, the meaning of eat their own dog food. I pointed out, very clearly, that technical support is NOT (repeat: NOT) what I meant.

3. You can "suggest" all you want. You are the one that asked the questions. If you didn't want answers, then don't ask. And if you think you know the answers, present them.

Either way, makes no difference. You don't quite understand board/CEO relationships, since in this case the CEO is a figurehead + major stock holder, nor did you even bother to read what I meant by support.

What I said:

A better term may have been to say that they stopped eating their own dog food. They don't support it in the sense of lending it credibility, not in terms of "customer support", but more in the sense of moral support.

What you said in response:

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean45 [microsoft.com] In short, you'll hear about it from Microsoft when they decide to discontinue support. And when you hear about it, you'll have 1 year to act, from that point. And you'll have paid support options past that date if you choose to use it. Suggest you stop spreading disinformation.

That makes you either ignorant, or a troll. I quite honestly would respect you more if it were the latter.

>>I invite you to research this yourself

Already have, my friend-of-a-friend. I use Bible.cc when looking up a lot of links. Seeing how people translate certain passages differently, and then reading literal translations, provides a lot of insight on problematic passages.

http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm

If you think that the different translations means that it can't be true, well, that's a very odd conclusion to reach. 10 people can translate a work from modern French 10 different ways, without casting any doubt on the authenticity of the original text. Your corruption over time argument would have more basis for criticism, except, as I said, the Dead Sea Scrolls casts doubt on that argument as well.

>>So, 95% correct in a version written about 980 years after the events cited. Well, that's not totally accurate either. It's back to say 6,000 years ago (if we believe some of the modern claims). I barely trust that someone can accurately write an account of something that happened a year ago, much less accurately notate something that happened approximately 40 generations earlier (assuming 25 years per generation).

Well, it's closer to 600 years gap between Isaiah being written and the Qumran scroll, which means it was closer to the original source than our previously oldest copy, which was from the 10th century AD.

If your claim of significant corruption over long time periods was accurate, then we'd expect to see a great deal more differences. In other words, atheists (this became popular in the 19th Century) created a hypothesis, and it was falsified.

>>And beyond that, if the bible is suppose to be the written work as passed down from God, then why have significant portions been left out of any modern version that you can get your hands on.

If you think that "the Bible" is a book, as opposed to a collection of related books, that might explain why you think there are "significant portions left out". Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple sections where there's some disagreement over the validity of a paragraph, but I think you're probably talking about the Apocrypha, which honest people can disagree over the validity of.

The camel endorses your viewpoint.

http://bible.cc/ezekiel/23-20.htm
Ezekiel 23-20:
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

Oops.... http://bible.cc/james/5-16.htm

Yeah, 'cause you'd never see a good conservative turn the other cheek, would you? It's not as though it's in any book that they'd be likely to read, would it...

Or use RFC1149 updated with wicker packets.

Great point. I remember the congregation's reaction when our pastor pointed out that the Bible would be rated NC-17 if accurately portrayed in a movie, and no movie studio would dare produce it not on religious grounds, but because the content would be so explicit.

Incest, rape, murder, mutilation of corpses, etc...it is all there.

You forgot the coprophagia.

Verse 1 of Genesis says that on the first day, God created the heavens (i.e., the planets and stars) and the earth. The rest of the creation account merely refines and enriches the existing matter (for the most part).

Regarding your second question: even Jesus couldn't heal everywhere he went. In some places, he refused to do miracles because of lack of faith. Other times, it simply wasn't his will to heal (although I'm sure that isn't the answer you're looking for). One must ask why Paul would instruct Timothy to take some wine for his stomach (when he simply could have prayed for healing):
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/5-23.htm

Also, Paul himself had a 'thorn in the flesh' which God refused to take away:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+12:7-10&version=NIV

Unfortunately, God is rather a bit more mysterious and doesn't fit very well into mathematical formulas as we'd like; but he is God after all; i.e., Sovereign Lord over Creation.

So, I can now see why American Baptists get so miffy about atheists -- it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are.

That's funny... that's the same reason I, an atheist, get so miffy about Christians, especially Baptists, especially young-earth Creationists.

What's really funny is how everyone thinks their own personal postulates (beliefs) about the universe are so much better than everyone else's.

Let's face it, we don't REALLY know much of anything about the universe past "cogito ergo sum". Everything else is conjecture. Get over mocking people for their beliefs when you have a slew of your own.

The ironic thing will be this relevant quote, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

It wasn't that somebody just decided "You know, we should just not have fun!", but there are reasons why these things are considered bad.

Are considered bad by some. Please do not use the passive in trying to imply this is an universal or even widely-held attitude.

The first hint is your conscience, but the reason behind it is that they are simply, as the Bible explains, inconvenient.

My conscience condemns neither sex, drugs or any other source of pleasure. It only condemns hurting or harming people. The Bible condemns adultery, but neither sex, alcohol nor pleasure in general.

Sex, for instance, is perfectly fine within the lifelong bond of marriage. However, when we use it as a source of pleasure, we find ourselves in all sorts of painful and distracting situations.

Interesting contrast. Are you implying that sex is not pleasurable with a lifelong partner, or did you simply not think your post through? And even if you are promiscuous, that doesn't mean that you will not use your brains in sexual matters, and thus succesfully avoid "painful and distracting" situations.

Also, no partner is lifelong, unless you happen to die in the same airplane crash or something.

As for intoxication, there are several problems. Other than the fact that you are out of control (depending on the intoxicant),

Like Hell you are. You simply get an excuse for bad behaviour.

you also have the tendency to get wrapped up in it and become less productive.

You mean my overlords get less profit from me if I enjoy life occasionally? Oh noes!

One may argue that there are drugs that are not adictive and cause no lasting damage. That may be the case, so they may not be so bad. The real problem is trying to define your life by pleasure, which is fleeting. It is one of the things, such as money, fame, etc. that people set their sites on that have no lasting benefit. In that sense, it is inconvenient at best.

Define "benefit". No matter how hard you try, it eventually reduces down to getting pleasure and/or avoiding pain.

Also, I can't help but remember a book on "christian sexual ethics" I once read. It had a chapter on masturbation, which first used rather tortured logic to condemn it as sin, then spent the next 20 pages describing how to center your life around not masturbating: do not take hot showers, never be alone in a room, etc.

Even the most obsessive pervert occasionally thinks of something besides the pleasures of the flesh, but a puritan never will. The book made me realize that, no matter how worthless it otherwise was. It's better to simply satisfy your desires and then go do something else than to spend every waking hour fighting against them. And, as it happens, the Bible - specifically, Paul's letters - say the same :).

I'm just saying that they are a potential snare, and I thank God that He loves and forgives even the worst and will remove them from the things they can't leave on their own.

Yeah, he even forgives people who say "they" when talking of those caught by tempting snares. Here, have a link; may you reflect on it and this and gain insight.

Though this well known verse was probably quite relevant at it's time of writing, it still says it all rather well.
http://bible.cc/ephesians/6-12.htm GREAT site I found looking up this scripture:

New International Version (©1984)
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

New Living Translation (©2007)
For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

English Standard Version (©2001)
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For our struggle is not against human opponents, but against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers in the darkness around us, and evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realm.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is not a wrestling match against a human opponent. We are wrestling with rulers, authorities, the powers who govern this world of darkness, and spiritual forces that control evil in the heavenly world.

King James Bible
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

Please scroll down at the above link to the commentaries and analysis. Simply must reading for anyone wanting insight.

The odd thing I see with the arguements above is the failure to realize some caution in the application of science is a good thing.

If the 'religious nuts' provide some caution to the scientific community and encourage the public to debate how science is implemented then that has a net positive result. Worth noting here that not all things claiming to be in the religious name actually are.

'declared biologically innocuous in an earlier study', yeah, we were told Thalidomide was a great drug .....

It is an interesting way to improve the tracking of embryos - the potential effects on development post embryo will need to be tested further before they can progress to human embryos. Further debate and research will be needed to identify if this is the only or desirable way to achieve the desired result.

The relevant bible clause here is worth a read - then ask yourself if forecasting this as a bad thing for mankind 2000 years ago makes Nostradamus look like an amateur. I can't help but wonder what Jesus would have said about gene patents.

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
Albert Einstein

[13:16] And it maketh all, the small, and the great, and the rich, and the poor, and the freemen, and the servants, that it may give to them a mark upon their right hand or upon their foreheads, [13:17] and that no one may be able to buy, or to sell, except he who is having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. --Revelations 13:16-17, New Testament (Young's Literal Translation)

I know it's against Slashdot protocol and all to cite religious texts, but if this isn't the prophecy from the Book of Revelation coming true, I don't know what is. I don't know about the rest of you, but the first time they try to inject that thing into my hand, I'm going to cite this religion text and state boldly and unwaveringly that it is against my religion to have an RFID implant. Posted AC because the mere mention of religion here without bashing it poses great risk to karma.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does Satan ever have a trident. But this is Slashdot... sigh let the Christian bashing begin if it must! :(

True. However, the Book of Revelations does refer to Satan's realm as Hades. The early Christians carried a lot of baggage from ancient Rome and thereby from ancient Greece. The Roman god of the underworld, Pluto (Greek = Hades) was frequently depicted carrying a bident - a two pronged staff. As any reader of the Percy Jackson series knows, the trident is carried by Hades' brother, the god of the sea (Roman name = Neptune, Greek = Poseidon).

Since Pluto/Hades was the god of the underworld, he became associated with Satan in many early Christians' minds, and the Book of Revelations referred to the underworld as Hades. At some point, for reasons unknown to me, some depictions of Pluto/Hades began to carry the trident. I guess it's cooler. Or maybe crueler. Hence the Satan - trident connection.

"Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him." Revelation 6:8, New International Version, also New American Bible.

"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." Revelation 20:14, New International Version, also New American Bible.

For another fine example of the early Christians inheriting from the ancient Romans and Greeks, take a look at the 1633 trial of Galileo for heresy for suggesting that his observations prove the Earth revolves around the Sun. The bible never says explicitly that the Sun revolves around the Earth (though the creation story is implicitly terracentric), but the Church, through its tradition of Scholasticism, was at the time still committed to many of the theories of Aristotle who explicitly supported the implicit terracentrism of the bible. Aristotle/Scholasticism won the early rounds, but today Galileo and the scientific method are the heavyweight tag-team champs, and the Catholic church has admitted is error vis-a-vis Galileo.

You can't win. If your job is nice but they use a bad language be happy you have a job. Trust me it is much much worse on the other side with the havenots. There are bad jobs at Walmart and and any fast food restaurant as these are the new 21st century jobs.

You can win: simply join a labour union. Yes, Wal-Mart an McDonalds will fire you, but that's because they're scared: unions can force minimum wage to be enough to live on, and they can force reasonable working hours, and unions can force vacation time, and so forth.

Minimum wage worker, you have nothing to lose but your chains, but you have the whole world to win. Join an union today, and fuck your corporate masters.

Reality is these evil corporations run the rules of the game. This is not going to change as must as I wish it would.

That's what they want you to think. But greater evil has fallen in the past. Even Soviet Russia fell. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Or, to put it another way: evil only wins when good men let it.

I've studied the Bible... The morality is repulsive. The theology is degrading...

[citation needed] That was pretty vague, unfortunately. Toss me an example or two to illustrate.

I'm not the grandparent you were responding to, but here are some examples.

Start with Hosea 13:16 which speaks for itself: "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

1 Corinthians 11: 2-16 says that women should cover their heads with a doiley in Church or when praying, to avoid disgracing God. Like many other anti-women scriptures, modern Christians have spent a great deal of time and mental power explaining this away.

1 Corinthians 14: 34-36 says that women should STFU in church, should not be allowed to speak. If they have a question, they should be good and talk to their man privately at home. Again, much time and energy has been spent by Christians explaining away this segment of the Word of God.

It's actually too easy, with regard to women, to bag on the bible. From putting women to death for prostitition, to cutting off the hand of a women who tries to help her husband in a fight and showing her no pity... to put it mildly, the Bible takes an unkind and unenlightened view of the role of women in the world.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that women should submit absolutely to their husbands in everything, just like a husband should ultimately submit to God. "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour."

Go read the Bible, cover to cover. It's disturbing in parts. But don't worry too much, very few Christians actually read it for themselves except for the happy parts. Alternatively, look at Dark Bible for a very unkind look at other things that are in the Bible.

I've studied the Bible... The morality is repulsive. The theology is degrading...

[citation needed] That was pretty vague, unfortunately. Toss me an example or two to illustrate.

I'm not the grandparent you were responding to, but here are some examples.

Start with Hosea 13:16 which speaks for itself: "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

1 Corinthians 11: 2-16 says that women should cover their heads with a doiley in Church or when praying, to avoid disgracing God. Like many other anti-women scriptures, modern Christians have spent a great deal of time and mental power explaining this away.

1 Corinthians 14: 34-36 says that women should STFU in church, should not be allowed to speak. If they have a question, they should be good and talk to their man privately at home. Again, much time and energy has been spent by Christians explaining away this segment of the Word of God.

It's actually too easy, with regard to women, to bag on the bible. From putting women to death for prostitition, to cutting off the hand of a women who tries to help her husband in a fight and showing her no pity... to put it mildly, the Bible takes an unkind and unenlightened view of the role of women in the world.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that women should submit absolutely to their husbands in everything, just like a husband should ultimately submit to God. "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour."

Go read the Bible, cover to cover. It's disturbing in parts. But don't worry too much, very few Christians actually read it for themselves except for the happy parts. Alternatively, look at Dark Bible for a very unkind look at other things that are in the Bible.

http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm
Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....
Ummmm. Try beginning from the beginning next time...

Actually it does have bearing. If it is a God given right inherent to man then it could be upheld in Human Rights Tribunals. Hey God gave us Marijuana http://bible.cc/genesis/1-29.htm and "Congress shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion. Like food it is sacramental. It's high time some dumbasses quit slamming God out of hand and take a look for themselves theres more plusses than negatives to this whole God business.

Psalms 74:14
http://bible.cc/psalms/74-14.htm

Surah 2:35-74
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/06/surah-2-35-74-allah-turns-jews-into.html

Then they're wrong. Adultery is something very specific - sexual intercourse where at least one adult is married.

But if you look at Matthew 5:28, Jesus neither specifies married man nor married woman, which to me implies an expansion of the sin of adultery. Sure, initially it was defined as the 'mixing of seed', but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And as I said below, if the act of lust itself is a sin then it follows that all forms of sexual contact would likely follow, as they almost necessarily involve lust. Alternatively, the sin could be against a woman's future husband or her virginity itself.

That said, Miseph has it right in this thread. Whether it is defined as a sin or not should not be used as a hammer to cause guilt. The barrier to sin is relatively low, so much so that we all do it. The message is not (or should not) be 'stop sinning so you can be saved', because it's impossible. Rather, it is a goal for believers, so they can act properly and respectfully towards others.

Put another way, nobody goes to Hell just because they got a BJ in High School. God just doesn't want his people exercising their sexuality outside the bounds of marriage.

Not to get too far off topic, but Christianity doesn't say too much about whether or not it's a sin to have oral sex, mutual masturbation, and other things along those lines that are NOT sexual intercourse. So are they sin or not?

In general, Jesus has wrapped this one up pretty well: Matthew 5:28

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I doubt that there is a pathway that leads to oral sex/mutual masturbation/other sexual acts that doesn't start with looking at and desiring the person. The sin is not the sexual act per-se, but the uncontrolable desire or fantasy for that sexual act with someone other than a spouse.

That said, many, including a majority of Christians, forget that the entire basis of the Christian message is based on the ubiquity of sin and our forgiveness of it even though it's undeserved. While the Bible still teaches that we should try not to sin (since it brings glory to God), it also teaches that no matter how hard we might try we still will. The focus has shifted from "we're all sinners and need forgiveness", toward defining which sins are the the 'really bad' ones that you're totally going to Hell for.

tl;dr: yes it's a sin, but it's hardly the only sin a teenager or anyone else will commit.

Ah, the endless capacity of apologists to BS themselves by postulating what's not actually in the text. How cute.

Why don't you follow your own advice and look what's actually in the text?

A few examples from http://bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm :

New International Version (©1984)
Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel."

New Living Translation (©2007)
Prepare and eat this food as you would barley cakes. While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread."

English Standard Version (©2001)
And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Eat the bread as you would eat barley loaves. Bake the bread in front of people, using human excrement for fuel."

King James Bible
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'necessary'. Bible comes to mind and how a donkey's jawbone can't qualify as much of a weapon. :)

Actually, the Bible does have much to say about "Single-Partner, Long-term, Public" homosexual relationships. Often when you find mentions of homosexuality, it is in the same sentence or passage with rape and incest.

If you come across a Bible Thumper, you should really ask them if their hard-line, book-waving stance on homosexuality is preached with the same fervor as all the other teachings of the Bible. Ask them how they feel about Women's Hairstyles (Longer is better!) or about how they should plant their crops. (Two types of seed in the same vineyard is really, really bad.)

I think Betty Bowers has the best take on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

I'd be interested in as specific a reference as possible to where the Israelites were specifically divinely commanded to rape. I recall that there are some divine orders requiring, for example, the Israelites only to offer peace to city before sacking it (I guess that would be only if the offer was not accepted, but I can't honestly say I remember, and here is a quick link I googled but although I can't vouch for the web site).

http://img389.imageshack.us/f/sciencevfaith20yp6ds3.png/ 'nuff said. What blows me away is how severely they contradict themselves in their own faith. From the Book of Revelations, Ch. 22, Vs. 18-19 (NIV): I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. This isn't some obscure verse that is little talked about, It is in the closing if the New Testament, in the Book of Revelations, the cornerstone of the Modern Christian Faith in the Second Coming and The End Times. YET, there are currently SEVENTEEN modern translations of the Bible... and each one paraphrases the above verses a little bit differently. That issue is so bad, that when quoting the Bible in print, for clarity you need to reference the translation it came from. http://bible.cc/revelation/22-18.htm Additionally, the Bible has gone through many translations changes, revisions, additions and edits over several thousand years. Largely based on political influences. Eg: why is the Book of Tobit only found in the Catholic Bible? Why does the Bible end with The Book of Revelations according to John and not Peter? What happened to The Gospel of Thomas? What of the legendary book suposed to have PRECEDED The Book of Genesis, co-authored by an Angel? Languages have changed SO much in the past 2-3 thousand years that things have been badly lost in translation. This just doesn't wash with Rev.22-18/19. Followed to the letter, the Old Testament should have never been translated from ancient proto-Hebrew and the New Testament should not have been translated from Aramaic and Latin. How do they reconcile these facts? They don't. It is more or less ignored, or decried as an attempt to undermine the faith. Hey bro, I'm not trying to undermine anything, I'm only pointing out what's there in the book and in the history of it. Not only do they ignore the Scientific Method in the Sciences, it is ignored internally for the faith as well. The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Judas and the Nag Hammadi Library are some examples. Again, decried as an attempt to undermine the faith. Yeah, sure. That is what the authors were thinking 2000 years ago when those passages were penned. Recent evidence also suggests that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was planned between the two and intentional, not really a betrayal. This translation error seems to have occurred about 2000 years ago when translating a Gospel from Aramaic to Greek. Many American Christian Fundamentalists want to say that the Constitution of the United States is not an interpretable document, that it is meant to be taken as it is written. Yet the Bible is open for all forms of interpretation. Pick a standard and stick to it people. All anti-science ignorance and rhetoric aside, I cannot take them seriously when they can't even get and keep their own faith in order.

If God tries to make a buck from shock [Ezekiel 23:20], why not CBS?

http://bible.cc/ezekiel/23-20.htm

It's NOT doctrine.

If someone wants to be a priest, bishop or other "top leader of a church" I suggest they look at this first:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+3&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NKJV

http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-2.htm

The requirements there for Bishops and Deacons don't mention celibacy anywhere. In fact they do even mention "husband of but one wife".

So there's above reproach, husband of but one wife, temperate, self controlled, good reputation with outsiders, etc.

So practicing polygamists/adulterers/fornicators/pedophiles/homosexuals do not meet that standard. Nor do drunkards.

You might ask why not practicing homosexuals? Because honestly if you're a practicing homosexual you would not meet the "above reproach", "blameless" and "good reputation with outsiders" requirement.

Like it or not, but It is a fact that a practicing homosexual is still not "above reproach" in the real world.

There are all sorts of outsiders you would deal with as an official representative of the church. Not meeting these requirements would reduce your effectiveness. You would be a blunt knife.

How about non-practicing homosexuals? IMO, there isn't such a vast difference to being faithful to one wife and being faithfully celibate. If you feel it's such a huge difference and you can't stay celibate, then too bad you don't meet the "self controlled" requirement.

BUT don't forget you can always serve in other ways.

There are plenty of good works still to be done, why do you need to be a priest, bishop, deacon or whatever to do it? What's your motive really?

I'm not a homosexual, but I certainly don't meet those high standards either.

Christians do have the advantage in the "whose religion is inherently violent" mudslinging match that nobody was killed in Jesus name while Jesus was alive, or while any of his students were alive, or their students, or their students, or their students, or their students.

http://bible.cc/john/18-10.htm

I'm pretty sure Peter was going for a head shot, and just got the ear. (A bit of context, this is the same Simon Peter that was one of the inner circle of followers - heck, the first Pope, if you will. Peter took a swipe at the High Priest's servant as they came to arrest Jesus, kicking off the process. While he might have been a lousy shot, the intent was sure as heck there, followed by explicit instructions to put the sword away.

Christianity is no more or less violent than any other religion. It's just the core of the faith has been supported by societies that have moved toward more progressive values in recent years. I suspect this is largely by chance, and nothing to do with Christianity itself.

-1, Wrong

The message in the founding book of Christianity is pretty consistent: Love thy enemy. Jesus didn't kill anybody, argued against his disciples when they raised the sword, and didn't protest when sentenced to death unjustly. Where is the violence in that? Christians may have killed, sinned, even harmed children :-(, but they'd be hard-pressed to point out the part of the gospel justifying such actions.

By contrast, my understanding is that Quran itself is used to justify the death threats that led to the present discussion.