Slashdot Mirror

I like using the Caesar quote for Separation of Church and State too.

You might appreciate Pslam 19, lines 1-4 and Romans 1 lines 18-20
a.k.a. science is the study of God's Truth, so shut the fuck up on evolution.

-

I like using the Caesar quote for Separation of Church and State too.

You might appreciate Pslam 19, lines 1-4 and Romans 1 lines 18-20
a.k.a. science is the study of God's Truth, so shut the fuck up on evolution.

-

It was all a series of events set up by God and perfectly orchestrated to fulfill prophecy. All of it was foretold, and the purpose of the prophecy was to make it so unmistakable when Messiah finally came that people would be utterly without excuse for missing it... which they did.

Furthermore the notion that the magi showed up on the night of Jesus birth is incorrect. Yes, you’ll typically see the Nativity scene with the brightly-lit barn, a few oxen and donkeys, some sheep, shepherds, and the wee three kings. That’s relatively far from the truth.

The Bible does say that the star appeared when Jesus was born, not before. Obviously the Magi (also referred to as kings... basically, the educated ruling aristocracy of their culture) didn’t arrive until later because they had a lengthy journey to undergo to get there... and the Bible does not, in fact, say exactly when they arrived. In fact, it specifically says the Magi (it doesn’t tell how many) arrived after Jesus was born.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.” — Matthew 2:1-2

Herod then finds out from the Magi when the star had appeared (i.e., when Jesus had been born)... and used this information to try to kill Jesus, when the Magi didn’t come back to tell him where to find the baby:

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. — Matthew 2:16

Furthermore, the Magi followed the star to pay their honours to Jesus’ birth in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah:

Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. — Isa. 60:3

And Herod’s actions and the escape to Egypt of Jesus’ parents and the baby were in preparation to fulfill another prophecy as well:

out of Egypt I called my son — Hosea 11:1b

As far as your opinion that the idea of the Magi getting invited is suspect... well, why? Yes, sorcery and astrology were forbidden... but not because they were make-believe or stage magic; it was clearly indicated that they had real supernatural force. In fact, in 1 Samuel 28:3-20, we read about King Saul’s visit to a medium who successfully called forth the spirit of the prophet Samuel (who appeared none too happy at being disturbed... probably not least because it was done in flagrant violation to God’s commands, thus bringing even more of God’s judgment upon Saul and the nation of Israel).

Or, perhaps God planned it on purpose exactly like that, so that the “magi from the East” would recognise Jesus’ birth and come to worship him, fulfilling prophecies such as Isaiah 60:3.

Not marrying is not the biggest problem. It's a sign of the problem, but not the problem. Allowing priests to marry isn't going to solve the main problem (just look at some of those "TV Evangelists" for examples).

The problem is the Catholic Church isn't even following their own sacred text in guidelines for picking top leaders of the church. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NIV

And yes they're also not following their own sacred text by forbidding marriage:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4&version=NIV

They might say it's not forbidding since you're allowed to do it in normal scenarios, but to me it seems almost as if they're intentionally mocking the Bible with stuff like "no marriage for priests", only fish on fridays, and fish = capybara etc.

People might challenge the authorship of 1 Timothy[1], but the Catholic Church accepts it as part of their Bible, and it predates all the bullshit they got up to later.

It hits pretty close to the mark, close enough for me to believe that God is going to say "Yes, that's what I said to you, Church, so why didn't you listen?".

[1] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

Not marrying is not the biggest problem. It's a sign of the problem, but not the problem. Allowing priests to marry isn't going to solve the main problem (just look at some of those "TV Evangelists" for examples).

The problem is the Catholic Church isn't even following their own sacred text in guidelines for picking top leaders of the church. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NIV

And yes they're also not following their own sacred text by forbidding marriage:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4&version=NIV

They might say it's not forbidding since you're allowed to do it in normal scenarios, but to me it seems almost as if they're intentionally mocking the Bible with stuff like "no marriage for priests", only fish on fridays, and fish = capybara etc.

People might challenge the authorship of 1 Timothy[1], but the Catholic Church accepts it as part of their Bible, and it predates all the bullshit they got up to later.

It hits pretty close to the mark, close enough for me to believe that God is going to say "Yes, that's what I said to you, Church, so why didn't you listen?".

[1] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

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.

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.

Irony aside there are historical reasons why the Church would be reluctant to recognise the authority of states over them (after all they think themselves the authority over states), much less hand their people over to them.

And this is my problem (as a Protestant, Lutheran to be more precise) with the Catholic Church. They focus on certain bits of the Bible which are convenient to them, rather than taking it as a whole. They forgot this little bit: 1 Corinthians 5

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Seems cut and dried to me. Why it isn't to the Catholic Church escapes me...

Again, just put yourself in the mindset of the Church. These guys genuinely believe they have a license from God to absolve the sinner of their sin. If the pervert priest in question confessed, said his Hail Marys or whatever, then it was all fixed, wasn't it?

Forgiveness is not freedom from consequences, or freedom to continue acting in sinful ways. I'm not sure this was the Catholic Church's belief in this matter, the documents leaked seemed that they simply wanted to avoid bad PR and embarassment for the guilty priests.

After all we are, so I'm informed, all born as sinners. And Catholicism is all about forgiving sin.

Correct on both points, but that is only a shallow understanding of scripture. The common translation is 'living in sin', where sins are no longer considered wrong. Unlike sinning and feeling remorseful (understandable, and unavoidable), we're talking about seeking out and pursuing sin. That these priests continued to (and their bishops and cardinals allowed them to) continue to work in areas where they were known to struggle with sin is disheartening. Similarly, a priest who struggles with alcohol should not be giving a tavern and bar outreach ministry.

Put another way, sin is unavoidable, but one shouldn't continue to place themselves in such situations where sin is likely.

You're right, we don't have the original copies of the Gospels, only fragments from long after the supposed events. The only full manuscripts we have are certainly copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, and so on. Such a route can introduce many corruptions and mistakes. However, New Testament Scholarship has been growing by leaps and bounds since the 20th century because more and more evidence (scrolls, historical documents) is being discovered. Along with that, certainty of their authenticity is growing.

Scholarly consensus is growing toward dating all four of the canonical Gospels in the 1st Century. For example, it's realistic to believe that the dating of Acts approximately lines up with the dating of the Apostle Paul's imprisonment in Rome (A.D. 62), since this is where the account ends. If Acts was the continuation of the account that Luke began in his Gospel account (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) then Luke would be dated sometime before A.D. 62.

I would suggest reading some additional New Testament scholars to help balance out your view of dating. Here are just a few:

• D. A. Carson
• Bruce M. Metzger ( The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration )
• Craig L. Blomberg ( The Historical Reliability of the Gospels )
• F. F. Bruce

Other thoughts about the historicity of Jesus: First-hand witnesses could be considered reliable.

• Oral tradition. Teachers, scholars, and students of the day were far better at memorization than we are. It was a firm part of their educational inheritance and their story-telling culture.
• Jesus was considered to be a rabbi by his disciples and even those who didn't follow him (Matthew 19:16-22). For the day, it was essential for a disciple to write down the sayings of his rabbi. If you didn't have something to write on, you would right it on your sleeve.
• Many disciples died or suffered on account of their witness (martyrdom, slavery). It's believable that someone would die for truth. It's also believable that someone would die for something they thought was true, but was actually false. It's not believable that someone would die for something they knew was false. Why would witnesses of Jesus' words and actions die if they knew what they said was false?
• Historical preservation was a common practice in the early church. Christians were punished for deviating from what was already known about what Jesus said.
• Even Jesus' enemies (Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees) have records of Jesus' miracles. They would attribute them to demonic forces (Matthew 12:22-32), but if you wanted to disprove Jesus, why would you even record it in the first place?

You're right, we don't have the original copies of the Gospels, only fragments from long after the supposed events. The only full manuscripts we have are certainly copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, and so on. Such a route can introduce many corruptions and mistakes. However, New Testament Scholarship has been growing by leaps and bounds since the 20th century because more and more evidence (scrolls, historical documents) is being discovered. Along with that, certainty of their authenticity is growing.

Scholarly consensus is growing toward dating all four of the canonical Gospels in the 1st Century. For example, it's realistic to believe that the dating of Acts approximately lines up with the dating of the Apostle Paul's imprisonment in Rome (A.D. 62), since this is where the account ends. If Acts was the continuation of the account that Luke began in his Gospel account (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) then Luke would be dated sometime before A.D. 62.

I would suggest reading some additional New Testament scholars to help balance out your view of dating. Here are just a few:

• D. A. Carson
• Bruce M. Metzger ( The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration )
• Craig L. Blomberg ( The Historical Reliability of the Gospels )
• F. F. Bruce

Other thoughts about the historicity of Jesus: First-hand witnesses could be considered reliable.

• Oral tradition. Teachers, scholars, and students of the day were far better at memorization than we are. It was a firm part of their educational inheritance and their story-telling culture.
• Jesus was considered to be a rabbi by his disciples and even those who didn't follow him (Matthew 19:16-22). For the day, it was essential for a disciple to write down the sayings of his rabbi. If you didn't have something to write on, you would right it on your sleeve.
• Many disciples died or suffered on account of their witness (martyrdom, slavery). It's believable that someone would die for truth. It's also believable that someone would die for something they thought was true, but was actually false. It's not believable that someone would die for something they knew was false. Why would witnesses of Jesus' words and actions die if they knew what they said was false?
• Historical preservation was a common practice in the early church. Christians were punished for deviating from what was already known about what Jesus said.
• Even Jesus' enemies (Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees) have records of Jesus' miracles. They would attribute them to demonic forces (Matthew 12:22-32), but if you wanted to disprove Jesus, why would you even record it in the first place?

You're right, we don't have the original copies of the Gospels, only fragments from long after the supposed events. The only full manuscripts we have are certainly copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, and so on. Such a route can introduce many corruptions and mistakes. However, New Testament Scholarship has been growing by leaps and bounds since the 20th century because more and more evidence (scrolls, historical documents) is being discovered. Along with that, certainty of their authenticity is growing.

Scholarly consensus is growing toward dating all four of the canonical Gospels in the 1st Century. For example, it's realistic to believe that the dating of Acts approximately lines up with the dating of the Apostle Paul's imprisonment in Rome (A.D. 62), since this is where the account ends. If Acts was the continuation of the account that Luke began in his Gospel account (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) then Luke would be dated sometime before A.D. 62.

I would suggest reading some additional New Testament scholars to help balance out your view of dating. Here are just a few:

• D. A. Carson
• Bruce M. Metzger ( The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration )
• Craig L. Blomberg ( The Historical Reliability of the Gospels )
• F. F. Bruce

Other thoughts about the historicity of Jesus: First-hand witnesses could be considered reliable.

• Oral tradition. Teachers, scholars, and students of the day were far better at memorization than we are. It was a firm part of their educational inheritance and their story-telling culture.
• Jesus was considered to be a rabbi by his disciples and even those who didn't follow him (Matthew 19:16-22). For the day, it was essential for a disciple to write down the sayings of his rabbi. If you didn't have something to write on, you would right it on your sleeve.
• Many disciples died or suffered on account of their witness (martyrdom, slavery). It's believable that someone would die for truth. It's also believable that someone would die for something they thought was true, but was actually false. It's not believable that someone would die for something they knew was false. Why would witnesses of Jesus' words and actions die if they knew what they said was false?
• Historical preservation was a common practice in the early church. Christians were punished for deviating from what was already known about what Jesus said.
• Even Jesus' enemies (Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees) have records of Jesus' miracles. They would attribute them to demonic forces (Matthew 12:22-32), but if you wanted to disprove Jesus, why would you even record it in the first place?

You're right, we don't have the original copies of the Gospels, only fragments from long after the supposed events. The only full manuscripts we have are certainly copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, and so on. Such a route can introduce many corruptions and mistakes. However, New Testament Scholarship has been growing by leaps and bounds since the 20th century because more and more evidence (scrolls, historical documents) is being discovered. Along with that, certainty of their authenticity is growing.

Scholarly consensus is growing toward dating all four of the canonical Gospels in the 1st Century. For example, it's realistic to believe that the dating of Acts approximately lines up with the dating of the Apostle Paul's imprisonment in Rome (A.D. 62), since this is where the account ends. If Acts was the continuation of the account that Luke began in his Gospel account (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) then Luke would be dated sometime before A.D. 62.

I would suggest reading some additional New Testament scholars to help balance out your view of dating. Here are just a few:

• D. A. Carson
• Bruce M. Metzger ( The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration )
• Craig L. Blomberg ( The Historical Reliability of the Gospels )
• F. F. Bruce

Other thoughts about the historicity of Jesus: First-hand witnesses could be considered reliable.

• Oral tradition. Teachers, scholars, and students of the day were far better at memorization than we are. It was a firm part of their educational inheritance and their story-telling culture.
• Jesus was considered to be a rabbi by his disciples and even those who didn't follow him (Matthew 19:16-22). For the day, it was essential for a disciple to write down the sayings of his rabbi. If you didn't have something to write on, you would right it on your sleeve.
• Many disciples died or suffered on account of their witness (martyrdom, slavery). It's believable that someone would die for truth. It's also believable that someone would die for something they thought was true, but was actually false. It's not believable that someone would die for something they knew was false. Why would witnesses of Jesus' words and actions die if they knew what they said was false?
• Historical preservation was a common practice in the early church. Christians were punished for deviating from what was already known about what Jesus said.
• Even Jesus' enemies (Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees) have records of Jesus' miracles. They would attribute them to demonic forces (Matthew 12:22-32), but if you wanted to disprove Jesus, why would you even record it in the first place?

John 6:51-58 (KJV)

51 "I am the reanimated bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will 'live' forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" 53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the brain of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 "Whoever eats My brain and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will reanimate him up at the last day. 55 "For My brain is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 "He who eats My brain and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 "This is the bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will be a zombie forever."

Look, if you don't want to live life as a Christian, I am not going to threaten you with eternal torture in Hellfire, or proselytize to you here on this forum. I did neither in this whole discussion. And now you come up with this crazy argument. (I am guessing you are the same AC all the way through)

So if you have a real question, I'll answer it, but the driving of the money changers out of the temple had nothing to do with the charging of interest. It had everything to do with profiting (or robbing) from believers inside the Temple, aka House of God.

Now as to same sex couples in the Temple, see Deuteronomy 23:18, NIV: You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute [a] into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. Footnote: [a] Deuteronomy 23:18 Hebrew of a dog

So yet another command in the Bible against homosexuality.

Just one example of said belief here.

I disagree with your interpretation of his answer. It seems to me his explanation is against the thought 'if we were supposed to be circumcised, wouldn't God have us born without foreskin?' I don't see the implication that the foreskin is a mistake, only that God's creation does not imply that the creation is not intended to be changed. Tell me if you think I'm totally off-base here.

More importantly, it's pretty obvious that we're talking cultural Judaism rather than religious Judaism (even most of the Jews in Israel don't believe in God). Otherwise, the question wouldn't have needed to be asked, and the answer would have just been God told us to. So the question becomes: do they circumcise for religious or cultural reasons, and are either acceptable. Put another way, this isn't necessarily a question about religious 'mutilation', but of cultural.

But famed jewish philosopher Maimonides had an even more disturbing view. He acknowledged that the foreskin was useful, that it had sexual functions, that removing it hampered one's sexual capacity. And circumcision should be done because of that. I kid you not, that's a guy who thought an inferior sex life was a moral goal. How demented does one have to be, to take that shit seriously?

Again, while I may be totally off base about this, it still seems to me to be a reflection of the change of mainstream Judaism toward acting cultural norms rather than religious belief. If we were speaking merely of belief, the Genesis quote would be enough. However, if you have a Jewish man who does not believe in God, you need another reason.

Long way of saying: if the person promoting circumcision is doing so for ulterior motives, I agree that is wicked. I have a hard time, though, condemning someone for circumcising a child in good faith and for the perceived good of their child.

My great-grand father was a pastor, my grand-mother and mother are protestants, but after going to sunday school and such I've become an atheist when I was a teen (for the reason you cite), and no one pressured me into reconsidering it. IMO the problem is the bigotry of the families you speak of, not that particular religion. BTW, there's "going through hell with your parents" and then there's "being harassed constantly and having your private life thoroughly investigated for dirty secrets to try and get you fired, jailed or institutionalized".

Speaking of my great-grand father, he was the kindest, most selfless man I've ever known (hid jews during WW2, helped develop a small pacific island, ...). He most certainly never pressured his parishioners into giving him or his church money.

Anyway, my point was that despite all the crooked priests and bigot followers, mainstream religions are much less greedy and evil than cults like scientology. For example, you can get the bible for free or at a very moderate cost, and without giving out any personal information. Same with the Qur'an. Try acquiring scientology "courses" for free or anonymously...

I dislike them because:

For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average, and even 50% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.

You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, God agrees with you! he HATES divorce! Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views. I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them. Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself."

After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).

This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway? Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!

They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).

This is also true but the Bible does say "You shall not steal" and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable. Did you know Jesus shared your view?

They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).

This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion. However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to. As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't. He will pass judgement upon them and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.

They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).

You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably. Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind. As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you. If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer, but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.

In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks

I dislike them because:

For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average, and even 50% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.

You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, God agrees with you! he HATES divorce! Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views. I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them. Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself."

After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).

This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway? Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!

They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).

This is also true but the Bible does say "You shall not steal" and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable. Did you know Jesus shared your view?

They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).

This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion. However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to. As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't. He will pass judgement upon them and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.

They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).

You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably. Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind. As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you. If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer, but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.

In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks

I dislike them because:

For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average, and even 50% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.

You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, God agrees with you! he HATES divorce! Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views. I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them. Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself."

After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).

This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway? Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!

They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).

This is also true but the Bible does say "You shall not steal" and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable. Did you know Jesus shared your view?

They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).

This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion. However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to. As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't. He will pass judgement upon them and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.

They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).

You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably. Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind. As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you. If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer, but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.

In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks

I dislike them because:

For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average, and even 50% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.

You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, God agrees with you! he HATES divorce! Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views. I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them. Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself."

After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).

This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway? Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!

They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).

This is also true but the Bible does say "You shall not steal" and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable. Did you know Jesus shared your view?

They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).

This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion. However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to. As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't. He will pass judgement upon them and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.

They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).

You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably. Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind. As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you. If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer, but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.

In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks

I dislike them because:

For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average, and even 50% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.

You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, God agrees with you! he HATES divorce! Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views. I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them. Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself."

After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).

This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway? Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!

They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).

This is also true but the Bible does say "You shall not steal" and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable. Did you know Jesus shared your view?

They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).

This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion. However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to. As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't. He will pass judgement upon them and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.

They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).

You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably. Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind. As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you. If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer, but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.

In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks

I dislike them because:

For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average, and even 50% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.

You're right about the divorce rate and guess what, God agrees with you! he HATES divorce! Also you're mostly right about the despising attitude towards atheists and agnostics, the truth is Christians, like Atheists and Agnostics, are human and therefore similar in their behavior towards those who don't share the same views. I can tell you that while I don't agree with their views I do not despise them. Some may despise them but this is more a human trait, as a Christian is called to 'love your neighbor as yourself."

After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).

This is also true, but then if we fail once, try again, and fail again should we give up anyway? Edison wouldn't have given us the light bulb should we give up so easily!

They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).

This is also true but the Bible does say "You shall not steal" and Jim Bakers theft from his church is sad, but stealing isn't limited to Christians and the idea that stealing is bad isn't limited to non-Christians as you have proved by finding it just as detestable. Did you know Jesus shared your view?

They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).

This I do not agree with (not your comment but Oral Roberts behavior) and you're right this is extortion. However when I give to my church I give because I want to, not because I'm compelled to. As far as claiming God will kill them, he won't. He will pass judgement upon them and especially to the leaders who do misrepresent what God says.

They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).

You're right about these supposed leaders of the Faith, they are a disgrace but no more so than anyone of any other belief whether its religious, philosophical, or ideological who fails miserably. Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps come to mind. As far as making homosexuals 'suffer' I do not see what you mean, if you are saying that by believing homosexual behavior is immoral and voting based on that belief then you do not respect the democratic right for someone to disagree with you. If by suffer you mean we tar and feather them you would be correct and I'd agree that we do make them suffer, but that wouldn't be what Jesus had called us to do.

In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks

Still a little way go before Bill's chances improve to pass through the eye of a needle:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2010:24-10:25&version=KJV

But it looks like he and his wife are at least giving it a try:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

Camel: "There's More Than One Way To Do It."
Needle: "No there isn't!"

My own phone has survived more than a mere season's worth of snow, getting run over, being dropped in a cup, and the more mundane causes of death. My own phone has survived the nuclear apocalypse. The zombie one. It was used as a weapon to bash in zombie skulls, and it survived a direct nuclear blast from a 50 megaton nuclear warhead; not even a scratch. Let's see your phones do that! Oh, and it survived a direct attack by God Almighty; all I had to do was trick the bastard into thinking that the phone was a chariot of iron. And you know what? It still had a full charge! It never drops a call or anything. Now, if you'll excuse me, I will return to my time machine after I laugh at your pathetic "iPhone" and "Droid." Smart phones? Ha! If only I could tell you more....

Here's (one of the variations) on the Biblical story of Legion:

Loosely translated from KJVspeak to modern English:

Or, more appropriately for this thread, translated into lolcat:

An dey rode invisible bicycle cross da seas, into dis place wif unpronouncable name. (i thinks is gadarenes). Wen Happy Cat got off teh boat, a man wif teh ebil spiwit comz to seez him. Teh man livd in teh tooms, an nobuddy cud ty him up. Bcuz he wuz rly strong, an cud braek chainz an stuff. Srsly. Teh man ranz arownd an cutz himsself wif teh stoenz.

Wen he seed Happy Cat, he ranz ovur to him an he fallz down. An he wuz liek "Wut u wantz? Plz not hurtz me, k? Tell yr daddy Ceiling Cat u no hurt me, srsly!" Bcuz Happy Cat wuz liek "O, hai! U getz out of teh man, ebil spiwit, k?"

An den Happy Cat wuz liek "Hay, wutz ur naem?" An teh gai wuz liek "Mai naem iz Legion, bcuz we iz many! We do not frgive we do not frget." Srsly. An teh men wuz liek "Plz dunt maek me leev heer, k?"

Lotz of pigz wuz havin fudz ovur on teh hillsydz. An teh demunz sed "I can go insied teh pigz, plz?" An Happy Cat wuz liek "O, okai!" an teh demunz went insied teh pigz, and teh pigz ranz in teh water an drownd.

It is a reference to the demon Legion in the bible.

It has never had this meaning.

You're both right. It is the same meaning. The biblical story was written around 20-30 AD, during the time of the Roman (You know, the guys who nailed Jesus to a tree) Empire.

Here's (one of the variations) on the Biblical story of Legion:

Loosely translated from KJVspeak to modern English: Once upon a time, there was a guy who was apeshit crazy because he was posessed. Jesus said "Yo, Demon! Who the hell are you?" The demon said "My name is Legion: for we are many." Sorta like a Borg collective. Jesus said "GTFO". The /b/tards said "Like, where?" Jesus said "There's so many of you, how 'bout that herd of 2000 pigs over there?" Legion said "good enough for me", and 2000 pigs ran into the sea like a bunch of crazed /b/tards. LOL!

2000 units. Right about the size of "a division of the Roman army, usually comprising 3000 to 6000 soldiers", or, a Legion.

They're an army, but they're nobody's personal army. They're a Roman legion's worth of individuals doing crazy shit, in unison, and it doesn't take much to set them running off in an unpredictable (even self-destructive) direction. Call them Legion, for they are many.

The argument about whether the reference is to the Roman military or the Biblical fable is (heh) moot; it's the same concept.

Ahem.

They warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every male.
They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. And they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword.
And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.
All their cities in the places where they lived, and all their encampments, they burned with fire,
and took all the spoil and all the plunder, both of man and of beast.
Then they brought the captives and the plunder and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chiefs of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp.
And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live?
Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

Numbers 30:7-18

Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene then all photos etc. on the internet not showing a burka should be considered pornographic. I've lost an enormous amount of respect for our judicial system with this decision.

Well it should not be hard to find someone who would go beyond that:

8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: -- Deuteronomy 5:8

Vaguely uncomfortable, eh? Like "why can't i own a canadian"?

Um, you *can* own a Canadian, if you're an American. See the Bible

Leviticus 19, verse 27. The old testament, in particular Deuteronomy and Leviticus, are not particularly friendly or caring, and don't seem to mind about a lot of people, and I see no reason why the naturally un-hirsute would be an exception.

Of course, if you're a Christian or have Christian-esque values (and I'm assuming you have/are, since you're posting on a western forum about religious matters, and are calling it the "Bible" and not the "Torah" or "Koran"), you should remember that Jesus basically threw out the rulebook (although he'd have been executed on the spot for explicitly saying so and thus wouldn't have gotten his message out, so you have to read between the lines) - see

• "Judge not lest ye be judged / Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"*
• "Love thy neighbour as thyself"
• "Ask and ye shall receive (viz. forgiveness, mercy, charity)"
• [pararphased] "Stop being an overly pious, showy asshole"* (eg Lord's Prayer, poor woman giving one sheckle is more than a rich man giving a large sum)

If you want to be a judgemental, apocryphal prick, then Christianity is the wrong religion for you (or you could take the tact of some Christians and just ignore Jesus' teachings). So basically, God's (revised) message is that it's within His ability to forgive you of the *mighty* sin of trimming your beard, and that He's not down with people giving you grief about it. /rant

* These especially apply to those fire-and-brimstone preachers. It always amazes me how they quote old testament and Paul's Letters, whilst slyly skipping over Jesus' direct condemnations of their behaviour - I imagine if He came back, he'd explode with fury, Sunday-market-at-the-temple style.

Leviticus 19, verse 27. The old testament, in particular Deuteronomy and Leviticus, are not particularly friendly or caring, and don't seem to mind about a lot of people, and I see no reason why the naturally un-hirsute would be an exception.

Of course, if you're a Christian or have Christian-esque values (and I'm assuming you have/are, since you're posting on a western forum about religious matters, and are calling it the "Bible" and not the "Torah" or "Koran"), you should remember that Jesus basically threw out the rulebook (although he'd have been executed on the spot for explicitly saying so and thus wouldn't have gotten his message out, so you have to read between the lines) - see

• "Judge not lest ye be judged / Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"*
• "Love thy neighbour as thyself"
• "Ask and ye shall receive (viz. forgiveness, mercy, charity)"
• [pararphased] "Stop being an overly pious, showy asshole"* (eg Lord's Prayer, poor woman giving one sheckle is more than a rich man giving a large sum)

If you want to be a judgemental, apocryphal prick, then Christianity is the wrong religion for you (or you could take the tact of some Christians and just ignore Jesus' teachings). So basically, God's (revised) message is that it's within His ability to forgive you of the *mighty* sin of trimming your beard, and that He's not down with people giving you grief about it. /rant

* These especially apply to those fire-and-brimstone preachers. It always amazes me how they quote old testament and Paul's Letters, whilst slyly skipping over Jesus' direct condemnations of their behaviour - I imagine if He came back, he'd explode with fury, Sunday-market-at-the-temple style.

Surely the mindless violence makes up for that.

The concept of the kings not being above the law goes back even further - back to ancient times.

See: Deuteronomy 17
  14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

  18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

See also: 1 Kings 21

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+21&version=NIV

Unlike kings of other countries (e.g. the one Jezebel was from), Ahab could not officially just execute Naboth and seize his land. Even Jezebel had to come up with a plot that worked somewhat within the restrictions of the law.

I certainly agree that some religions do teach hate, but Christ's teachings (for example) have never supported hate nor violence...

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26

"There is no God."

Ok. How about: Scientology heavily restricts access to their "holy works" even to members and maintains strict copyright control over them to the point of threatening lawsuits against people who post copies of their "holy works."

Now let's try substituting Christianity or Judaism. Here's a translation of the Jewish bible: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm (Copyright is claimed over the HTML, but it's still given out pretty freely.) Here's a Christian version of the same thing: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NIV

I don't see any lawsuits demanding that these online bibles be taken down because someone church owns the copyrights on them. If anything, the churches/temples would *want* you to read their holy books. Walk into any Jewish bookstore and ask for a set of Art Scroll texts (that publisher is highly regarded) and you won't be asked to prove your "Judaism level" (as if there were such a thing). You won't even be required to be Jewish. You could then take those books and show them to a dozen people and no temple would file suit or come knocking at your door to seize your "forbidden knowledge."

Hmmmm...in that "formal document" you refer to, I seem to remember reading something along the lines of, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" which is a pretty good argument against killing someone. I also read something in that same "formal document" that states, IIRC, "Thou shalt not kill.". As for the laws that were given to the Israelites that end in, "...that person shall be put to death...", I believe they every one of those rules had a provision to offer a sacrifice to remove that guilt. I admit I haven't (yet) read the entire Bible cover to cover, but I have been through a fair amount of it and quite honestly, I can't recall a single example where anyone ever was actually put to death (rather than offering a sacrifice and making atonement) for any of those things...at least until the Pharisees began killing the Christian "heretics" in the New Testament, but then again, that wasn't Christians killing people, either.

Hmmmm...in that "formal document" you refer to, I seem to remember reading something along the lines of, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" which is a pretty good argument against killing someone. I also read something in that same "formal document" that states, IIRC, "Thou shalt not kill.". As for the laws that were given to the Israelites that end in, "...that person shall be put to death...", I believe they every one of those rules had a provision to offer a sacrifice to remove that guilt. I admit I haven't (yet) read the entire Bible cover to cover, but I have been through a fair amount of it and quite honestly, I can't recall a single example where anyone ever was actually put to death (rather than offering a sacrifice and making atonement) for any of those things...at least until the Pharisees began killing the Christian "heretics" in the New Testament, but then again, that wasn't Christians killing people, either.

Come on, everybody knows the Earth is round - like a circle. The Bible clearly states that. Now if you want to try to argue that the Earth is spherical, that a different matter.

It may be round, but it's a circle with corners

Christianity doesn't say "burn witches and sorcerers" In the Bible only example of sorcerers that the apostles meet are either accepted into the Way (and their books/scrolls burned), or denounced and otherwise left alone.

From 1 Kings 18, King James
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18&version=KJV

30And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down.
.
.
.
39And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

40And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

I get what you're saying, but notice that Elijah was completely B.C. (and thus not an Apostle of Christ), so mercy and grace weren't big on his todo list. Also, priests of Baal weren't quite in the same mix as sorcerers; it was believed back then that sorcerers had power (via spirits or [fallen]angels), but Baal was supposed to be a god, and worship of other gods was the biggest no-no for the Hebrews. Yes, the Salem townsfolk might have decided to go old-testament, but that's not Christianity. It's not really Judaism either. It was Salem's secular laws built around a pseudo-religious framework.

Mat 24:35-36 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Northstariarry, did you learn about religion from the Internet? You just linked to a huge assemblage of random Wiki pages, most of which do not back up your arguments like you intend to imply. Here, this is how you use links to support an argument, rather than as an intellectual shotgun, hoping that if you throw enough links out there, some of them will support you.

I mean, you link to Islam when you say that people deny Jesus' status as prophet? Seriously? They're the ones who think Jesus was *only* a prophet (and here's Wikipedia on the subject, since you only seem to believe Wiki links)! And you link to "Jewish Christians" to say that they deny Jesus' status as Messiah, when that's quite the opposite! It's the non-Christian Jews who think that Jesus is not the Messiah (again, maybe *you* should read the Wiki articles on the subject).

Or take the Paulicianism link. Although they claimed to want to "restore the pure Christianity of Paul," Paul himself condemned the very idea some 600 years earlier, when he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians (see 1 Cor 1:11-16, which was dictated to a scribe and then signed by Paul himself in 1 Cor 16:21).

And the Septuagint is merely a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures used by Jews of the day. The Masoretic text is from the 8th Century, when Christians had been using the LXX for hundreds of years (examine your own wiki links sometime, please; you can find that picture in with the article on the Masoretic text). Further, you claim all sorts of things about the cannon, but give a very misleading idea of how it came to be. Yes, many books (some heretical) were circulated for a long time. The reason the cannon is cannon is because they selected those books which nobody had a problem with that were widely used. So they threw out any dubious accounts that were just from one congregation. And a few books that seemed reliable, but not universal, were relegated to 'Deuterocannonical' status (these are the 'Apocrypha' that were removed from most Protestant Bibles some decades ago, but which are easy enough to find--and books like Sirach are quoted liberally in the NT). This is why we have collections of the Gospels by the 2nd century. This is why we have many, many translated early copies of important books. This is why nobody cares about disputed authorship: because the authors don't matter. Believe it or not, some of us are quite familiar with many of those oddball books and when you get down to the details, they tend to prove very little other than the fact that some nut tried to start his own religion or denomination hundreds of years after the fact.

Now, indeed there have been decisions about what goes on the list, but they're not at all like the ones you're implying, where they result in this massive change. The core list has been stable for a long, long time. It's true that people don't appreciate all this history (and many do not know of it), but it's not at all like you're implying.

Northstariarry, did you learn about religion from the Internet? You just linked to a huge assemblage of random Wiki pages, most of which do not back up your arguments like you intend to imply. Here, this is how you use links to support an argument, rather than as an intellectual shotgun, hoping that if you throw enough links out there, some of them will support you.

I mean, you link to Islam when you say that people deny Jesus' status as prophet? Seriously? They're the ones who think Jesus was *only* a prophet (and here's Wikipedia on the subject, since you only seem to believe Wiki links)! And you link to "Jewish Christians" to say that they deny Jesus' status as Messiah, when that's quite the opposite! It's the non-Christian Jews who think that Jesus is not the Messiah (again, maybe *you* should read the Wiki articles on the subject).

Or take the Paulicianism link. Although they claimed to want to "restore the pure Christianity of Paul," Paul himself condemned the very idea some 600 years earlier, when he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians (see 1 Cor 1:11-16, which was dictated to a scribe and then signed by Paul himself in 1 Cor 16:21).

And the Septuagint is merely a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures used by Jews of the day. The Masoretic text is from the 8th Century, when Christians had been using the LXX for hundreds of years (examine your own wiki links sometime, please; you can find that picture in with the article on the Masoretic text). Further, you claim all sorts of things about the cannon, but give a very misleading idea of how it came to be. Yes, many books (some heretical) were circulated for a long time. The reason the cannon is cannon is because they selected those books which nobody had a problem with that were widely used. So they threw out any dubious accounts that were just from one congregation. And a few books that seemed reliable, but not universal, were relegated to 'Deuterocannonical' status (these are the 'Apocrypha' that were removed from most Protestant Bibles some decades ago, but which are easy enough to find--and books like Sirach are quoted liberally in the NT). This is why we have collections of the Gospels by the 2nd century. This is why we have many, many translated early copies of important books. This is why nobody cares about disputed authorship: because the authors don't matter. Believe it or not, some of us are quite familiar with many of those oddball books and when you get down to the details, they tend to prove very little other than the fact that some nut tried to start his own religion or denomination hundreds of years after the fact.

Now, indeed there have been decisions about what goes on the list, but they're not at all like the ones you're implying, where they result in this massive change. The core list has been stable for a long, long time. It's true that people don't appreciate all this history (and many do not know of it), but it's not at all like you're implying.

You should read I Samuel 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Sam%208&version=NIV).

Normally I'd ignore such short, comments which have not really been thought out, but due to the fact that it directly relates to my sig.... Please don't comment on the Bible until you've read it first (and if you've read it, you've missed big chunks of it if you believe that just being good gets you into heaven... see Ephesians 2:8-9, for example).

Being good has nothing to do with being allowed into heaven—the best person in the world has broken at least one of God's laws in their lifetime - ever disrespected your parents? You've broken the commandment to honor your father and mother! Breaking one law of God is the same as breaking them all, as God requires us to be perfect to enter heaven. Being good is a response to the loving gift of eternal life from God based solely on your belief that his son, Jesus, paid the required price for your sinful nature. It is the belief itself in Jesus, and the willingness to let him pay the fine (eternal death) for your sins, thereby making you perfect by proxy (think accounting: you owed a debt because of your actions which broke God's laws, Jesus pays the debt, your balance sheet is then balanced, making you perfect through no action of your own beyond letting Jesus bring the books into balance, or think courtroom justice: you were caught breaking a law, God is the judge... who is your advocate? If you accept Jesus as your advocate, he stands before the judge and says "he's guilty, but I volunteer to pay the penalty in his stead." The judge then metes out justice, but Jesus stands in your place, taking the punishment of death, while you remain free.).

Being good is not enough, you must be perfect (who but Jesus has ever been perfect, without sin?), and if you cannot be perfect, God allows for one (and only one) other alternative—you must allow Jesus to stand in your place since he is the only one who was perfect, and he paid the price to get you into heaven. Jesus freely offers to take your punishment. If you wish to waive his counsel, you are free to self represent, but then you have no defense, and will be found guilty, and receive appropriate punishment for your crimes against God. So, no, the bible does not "have you covered" if you think being good is all that is required. In contrast, the bible condemns anyone who thinks this way, calls them prideful, and clearly details that access to heaven is a gift from God to those who will receive it, and not based on good works, so that no man can boast that his works are better than another and therefore will get him better "positioning" in heaven.


tl;dr: Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly disagrees with the notion that being good gets you into heaven, so the bible does not "have you covered" if you believe goodness is what grants you entrance into heaven.

Normally I'd ignore such short, comments which have not really been thought out, but due to the fact that it directly relates to my sig.... Please don't comment on the Bible until you've read it first (and if you've read it, you've missed big chunks of it if you believe that just being good gets you into heaven... see Ephesians 2:8-9, for example).

Being good has nothing to do with being allowed into heaven—the best person in the world has broken at least one of God's laws in their lifetime - ever disrespected your parents? You've broken the commandment to honor your father and mother! Breaking one law of God is the same as breaking them all, as God requires us to be perfect to enter heaven. Being good is a response to the loving gift of eternal life from God based solely on your belief that his son, Jesus, paid the required price for your sinful nature. It is the belief itself in Jesus, and the willingness to let him pay the fine (eternal death) for your sins, thereby making you perfect by proxy (think accounting: you owed a debt because of your actions which broke God's laws, Jesus pays the debt, your balance sheet is then balanced, making you perfect through no action of your own beyond letting Jesus bring the books into balance, or think courtroom justice: you were caught breaking a law, God is the judge... who is your advocate? If you accept Jesus as your advocate, he stands before the judge and says "he's guilty, but I volunteer to pay the penalty in his stead." The judge then metes out justice, but Jesus stands in your place, taking the punishment of death, while you remain free.).

Being good is not enough, you must be perfect (who but Jesus has ever been perfect, without sin?), and if you cannot be perfect, God allows for one (and only one) other alternative—you must allow Jesus to stand in your place since he is the only one who was perfect, and he paid the price to get you into heaven. Jesus freely offers to take your punishment. If you wish to waive his counsel, you are free to self represent, but then you have no defense, and will be found guilty, and receive appropriate punishment for your crimes against God. So, no, the bible does not "have you covered" if you think being good is all that is required. In contrast, the bible condemns anyone who thinks this way, calls them prideful, and clearly details that access to heaven is a gift from God to those who will receive it, and not based on good works, so that no man can boast that his works are better than another and therefore will get him better "positioning" in heaven.


tl;dr: Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly disagrees with the notion that being good gets you into heaven, so the bible does not "have you covered" if you believe goodness is what grants you entrance into heaven.

Because it hasn't been superseded. Jesus specifically said in Matthew 5: (BibleGateway.com)

17 "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. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Remember that there are people on Slashdot who hate religion, hate Christianity in particular, and have no problem spreading FUD about it. To those people, I quote the next few verses after the above. Not that they'll care, but it's worth repeating:

19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Of course, the entire point of the Jesus' death and resurrection is to make up for the fact that verse 20 is impossible to accomplish without clean-slate forgiveness from Jesus, but that's a whole other discussion.

Additionally, the Old Testament provides a significant amount of historical context to the New Testament. Who are these people? Why do I care? What have they been through, and why is salvation necessary? If some guy named Jesus just showed up at the beginning of the book and said "Hi, I'm God and I'm here to save you" it wouldn't be a very interesting story.

You find misinformed, anti-scientific drivel enlightening? Why don't you read actual scientific literature instead of pseudoscientific nonsense? Educate yourself.

I'm guessing you didn't read it. Contrary to all your assumptions, the article linked is quite foundationally solid. In fact, it doesn't take much of a pro-creation stance at all.

You are indeed an idiot. Life was created without death, remember?

Let's act our age, shall we?

You bring up a great point about the original creation being "very good." Many suppose that to mean there was no death. Perhaps. According to Genesis 1, though, death is not mentioned in relation to being "very good." I'm not positive that an absence of death is a requirement for a creation to be considered good.

It's not a "fear." If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden. Read verse 22 here.

Most Jews have decided to just ignore the existence of that verse. The Conservative movement passed an opinion a few years ago that allowed homosexuals to be ordained as rabbis and allowed individual rabbis to decide for themselves whether or not to perform homosexual marriages. I haven't read the entire opinion, but I believe the reasoning was that the laws about preserving human dignity should be given greater importance than a single, rather unspecific Biblical verse. The Reform movement, which is by far the largest in the United States, made these decisions several years ago (a quick search gave me 1990 for ordaining homosexuals, and 2000 for accepting homosexual marriages).

In other words, shut up and give us back our book.