Slashdot Mirror

I'm not religious, but curiosity got the best of me so looked up all your citations and I just don't see it:

Luke 1:41-44:
https://www.biblegateway.com/p...
We all know Mary has a magic fetus, and the fact that it's nearness to another fetus, which jumps in the womb in response, seems a special case. Most fetuses aren't exposed to gods.

Psalm 51:
https://www.biblegateway.com/p...
"Shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin" -- so sex is a sin that sets in motion a chain of events that leads to people. That seems pretty thin, especially when the writer near the end talks about how god doesn't care about burnt offerings, and then four lines later about all the burnt offerings he is going to give god. If sex is a sin, so are the products of it. Doing an abortion would be a corrective action and should have god's support.

Psalm 139:
https://www.biblegateway.com/p...
This one seems basically at odds with 51 which decried conception as a dirty nasty sin. Now we're hearing how the writer was "knit together in my mother's womb" and how awesome god is at knitting. When does a ball of yarn become a sweater? That isn't answered here. Is a partially completed garment the same as the marvelous completed garment? That isn't answered here either. What is jarring though, is that right after explaining how god is the uber-knitter, he goes into talking about how much he wished god would help him kill and destroy all his enemies. Psychotic.

Jeremiah 1:5
https://www.biblegateway.com/p...
Sounds like god is talking to a specific person who will be a prophet to all nations. I'm guessing Jeremiah was that dude? Is there any evidence that all people in all times and places were getting this special attention from god, to be prophets to each other? If they all know the same stuff -- why would they have to be prophets to all nations?

Hosea 12
https://www.biblegateway.com/p...
So this sounds like a denunciation of some dude name Ephraim who became rich using scales calibrated in his favor, made a treaty with Assyria, trades with Egypt, and by the way, the people who live in Gilead really suck, they sacrifice bulls! About the only part I can see related to abortion is that Gilead grabbed his brother's heel while in the womb (I assume they are twins, else this gets really crazy), but it comes in this long stream of insults, kind of like calling him a motherfucker even if not literally true. I don't really some much on topic here -- it's just a big long insult and people say all kinds of shit when insulting people.

The New Living Translation at Romans 1:32 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A24-32&version=NIV;NASB;MSG;NLT) says "They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." which is quite different to your quote. The NLT is a non-direct translation, one of the looser ones, written in more modern language. You should always use several translations if you're not going to study in depth the original texts.

You also break at 1:32, in the original there was no break there the following point is key, Paul writes that we shouldn't be so quick to judge those we perceive as offending God as we too are really amongst that number - nonetheless God will judge all mercifully and according to the good they have done. See Romans 2, https://www.biblegateway.com/p....

However you do get to the heart of Jesus message here - his message is that whilst we all have sinned, we all have done things that offend God's order and all are worthy to die and so cease to be INSTEAD Jesus has sacrificed himself and paid the price that we all can turn from sin and be saved through him, restoring our relationship with God, and ultimately being with God for eternity in heaven.

Presumably your intention was to show that Christianity allows killing, yet none of your citations relate bar one and that one goes quite contrary to your apparent position.

God cannot, however, be DISproven. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Well, up to a point. Many theologies try to make claims that amount to predictions: God will answer your prayers etc. So far, none of these have passed the test, thus demonstrating that whether God is real or not, the theologies that try to make us believe that he is, are not true.

Oh, so because you didn't get the answer that you wanted God no longer exists?
Sorry, doesn't work that way. An "answer to prayer" may be the answer you wanted, or it may not be.

For instance, praying that God make your bank account contain a million dollars out of thing air will probably not make that happen; thus a negative (no) answer. That doesn't mean that God didn't answer your prayer - just that he chose to answer it in the negative instead of the affirmative.

So again, that is not a valid method of DISproving God's existence.

Most people would long have abandoned a concept with such a poor track record. The only reason why some people hold on to this, as far as I can see, is bullying: every time you dare raise the question of why God never answers even the most reasonable prayers, or the most desperate ones, or indeed any prayers at all, you are met with "How dare you test God?!? Who are you to demand any proof of God?!?". Bullying, plain and simple. If God was real and cared about us, he wouldn't be so petty, I'm sure.

Sad when people respond that way; but it goes to show their lack of understanding of what an "answered prayer" means. Too often people expect that an answer is only the answer they are looking for, when the answer may just as well be the opposite.

This is actually demonstrated Biblically as well - when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46) where he asked that what needed to be done be taken from him if at all possible. The answer was clearly "no" - he didn't get what he prayed for, but rather submitted himself to that response.

That's probably because Christianity does not require believers to spread the faith — at the point of a weapon, if necessary. It has happened in the past, but not because anything in the scripture mandates it. Unlike in Koran... So a Christian fanatic, who wishes to live by the word of his god is not compelled to convert or kill anyone. A Muslim fanatic, unfortunately, is...

Actually, Christians are encouraged to spread the faith. It is called the Great Commission. In spite of what happened during the Crusades, you are correct that christianity does not insist that this be done at the point of a weapon if necessary. In fact, Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and pray for their enemies. More precisely, according to the Bible Christians are supposed to spread the good news (gospel). Conversion is supposed to be left up to the Holy Spirit. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't at least a few Christians—some perhaps well-meaning, some quite a bit less so—who want to help the Holy Spirit along to "do the right thing". But I think of that as being motivated by human frailty and over-zealousness, not by anything written in the Bible.

That's probably because Christianity does not require believers to spread the faith — at the point of a weapon, if necessary. It has happened in the past, but not because anything in the scripture mandates it. Unlike in Koran... So a Christian fanatic, who wishes to live by the word of his god is not compelled to convert or kill anyone. A Muslim fanatic, unfortunately, is...

Actually, Christians are encouraged to spread the faith. It is called the Great Commission. In spite of what happened during the Crusades, you are correct that christianity does not insist that this be done at the point of a weapon if necessary. In fact, Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and pray for their enemies. More precisely, according to the Bible Christians are supposed to spread the good news (gospel). Conversion is supposed to be left up to the Holy Spirit. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't at least a few Christians—some perhaps well-meaning, some quite a bit less so—who want to help the Holy Spirit along to "do the right thing". But I think of that as being motivated by human frailty and over-zealousness, not by anything written in the Bible.

That's probably because Christianity does not require believers to spread the faith — at the point of a weapon, if necessary. It has happened in the past, but not because anything in the scripture mandates it. Unlike in Koran... So a Christian fanatic, who wishes to live by the word of his god is not compelled to convert or kill anyone. A Muslim fanatic, unfortunately, is...

Actually, Christians are encouraged to spread the faith. It is called the Great Commission. In spite of what happened during the Crusades, you are correct that christianity does not insist that this be done at the point of a weapon if necessary. In fact, Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and pray for their enemies. More precisely, according to the Bible Christians are supposed to spread the good news (gospel). Conversion is supposed to be left up to the Holy Spirit. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't at least a few Christians—some perhaps well-meaning, some quite a bit less so—who want to help the Holy Spirit along to "do the right thing". But I think of that as being motivated by human frailty and over-zealousness, not by anything written in the Bible.

Jesus helped the poor â" and encouraged followers to do so as well â" but he never called for Caesar to raise taxes and give free food to anyone...

This seems a bad example. Jesus broke the Sabbath law - a law that was seen as exactly the same level of morality as "though shalt not steal". while he didn't say the government has an obligation, to the poor, he did accept that the government has the right to our money which would seem to contradict your earlier point., and he had absolutely no qualms about stealing a donkey for his own benefit, and was willing to destroy a whole herd of pigs to help another man. He also said that it is practically impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, so obviously he felt that wealth, or at least greed should be punished.

Many philosophers have argued against property being a natural right. Hume argues that there is no possession except that established by laws of society.

Once again, if you are so "sure", why do you need the tax authorities to force Pauls into paying for Peters? Not encourage, mind you, but force? Why can't Paul voluntarily give Peter the extra monies for whatever service Peter goes to work to do? Perhaps, you aren't quite as sure as you claim to be...

For the most part, Paul is paying voluntarily. And Peter is voluntarily accepting that Paul has the right to most of the money he's acquired. If either of these people break this social agreement then they are punished.

There you go â" this one phrase is the tell-tale. You find selfishness unacceptable, and therefor it is Ok â" in your opinion â" to crush the "selfish" into obedience by force of arms... That's moral?

Yes. I consider murder as unacceptable as well. Also theft - as defined by society - to be unacceptable. Some people think you don't deserve your possessions. You are willing to crush these people with force of arms.

Big enough to be comfortable. Until you've had a chance to compare 5 or more German showers to that many American ones, you wouldn't understand. And I have â" perhaps, on this one you can just take my word...

This is a bizarre means of measuring quality of life. How many people in Europe can't afford basic health care? How many people go without basic food?

The entire Europe (population over 700 mln) would not be able to resist a Russian (population under 150 mln) invasion... Because you don't spend enough money on equipment and training. And not just that, unfortunately...

The solution to this would be to increase taxation and spend it on the military. What would you propose, given that you apparently consider taxation to be a crime? Hell, the soviet union had a massive army and that was a society that essentially rejected the concept of private ownership!

Jesus helped the poor â" and encouraged followers to do so as well â" but he never called for Caesar to raise taxes and give free food to anyone...

This seems a bad example. Jesus broke the Sabbath law - a law that was seen as exactly the same level of morality as "though shalt not steal". while he didn't say the government has an obligation, to the poor, he did accept that the government has the right to our money which would seem to contradict your earlier point., and he had absolutely no qualms about stealing a donkey for his own benefit, and was willing to destroy a whole herd of pigs to help another man. He also said that it is practically impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, so obviously he felt that wealth, or at least greed should be punished.

Many philosophers have argued against property being a natural right. Hume argues that there is no possession except that established by laws of society.

Once again, if you are so "sure", why do you need the tax authorities to force Pauls into paying for Peters? Not encourage, mind you, but force? Why can't Paul voluntarily give Peter the extra monies for whatever service Peter goes to work to do? Perhaps, you aren't quite as sure as you claim to be...

For the most part, Paul is paying voluntarily. And Peter is voluntarily accepting that Paul has the right to most of the money he's acquired. If either of these people break this social agreement then they are punished.

There you go â" this one phrase is the tell-tale. You find selfishness unacceptable, and therefor it is Ok â" in your opinion â" to crush the "selfish" into obedience by force of arms... That's moral?

Yes. I consider murder as unacceptable as well. Also theft - as defined by society - to be unacceptable. Some people think you don't deserve your possessions. You are willing to crush these people with force of arms.

Big enough to be comfortable. Until you've had a chance to compare 5 or more German showers to that many American ones, you wouldn't understand. And I have â" perhaps, on this one you can just take my word...

This is a bizarre means of measuring quality of life. How many people in Europe can't afford basic health care? How many people go without basic food?

The entire Europe (population over 700 mln) would not be able to resist a Russian (population under 150 mln) invasion... Because you don't spend enough money on equipment and training. And not just that, unfortunately...

The solution to this would be to increase taxation and spend it on the military. What would you propose, given that you apparently consider taxation to be a crime? Hell, the soviet union had a massive army and that was a society that essentially rejected the concept of private ownership!

Jesus helped the poor â" and encouraged followers to do so as well â" but he never called for Caesar to raise taxes and give free food to anyone...

This seems a bad example. Jesus broke the Sabbath law - a law that was seen as exactly the same level of morality as "though shalt not steal". while he didn't say the government has an obligation, to the poor, he did accept that the government has the right to our money which would seem to contradict your earlier point., and he had absolutely no qualms about stealing a donkey for his own benefit, and was willing to destroy a whole herd of pigs to help another man. He also said that it is practically impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, so obviously he felt that wealth, or at least greed should be punished.

Many philosophers have argued against property being a natural right. Hume argues that there is no possession except that established by laws of society.

Once again, if you are so "sure", why do you need the tax authorities to force Pauls into paying for Peters? Not encourage, mind you, but force? Why can't Paul voluntarily give Peter the extra monies for whatever service Peter goes to work to do? Perhaps, you aren't quite as sure as you claim to be...

For the most part, Paul is paying voluntarily. And Peter is voluntarily accepting that Paul has the right to most of the money he's acquired. If either of these people break this social agreement then they are punished.

There you go â" this one phrase is the tell-tale. You find selfishness unacceptable, and therefor it is Ok â" in your opinion â" to crush the "selfish" into obedience by force of arms... That's moral?

Yes. I consider murder as unacceptable as well. Also theft - as defined by society - to be unacceptable. Some people think you don't deserve your possessions. You are willing to crush these people with force of arms.

Big enough to be comfortable. Until you've had a chance to compare 5 or more German showers to that many American ones, you wouldn't understand. And I have â" perhaps, on this one you can just take my word...

This is a bizarre means of measuring quality of life. How many people in Europe can't afford basic health care? How many people go without basic food?

The entire Europe (population over 700 mln) would not be able to resist a Russian (population under 150 mln) invasion... Because you don't spend enough money on equipment and training. And not just that, unfortunately...

The solution to this would be to increase taxation and spend it on the military. What would you propose, given that you apparently consider taxation to be a crime? Hell, the soviet union had a massive army and that was a society that essentially rejected the concept of private ownership!

Not to get into any way off-topic bible matter here, but even that passage (Romans 1:26:28) is subject to translation discussion. some say the Septuagint didn't know all the 'special' Hebrew/Aramaic words. And then the King James translators from the Latin/Greek applied their own ideas of sexual perversions. that is, it's worth going to a website that has many translations and seeing just how many of them include passages like "burned in lust one toward another" and those which somehow don't find that in the original

for example: God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural ...so what exactly "unnatural"? many folks think the know what that means, but there's a lot of years in between.

And if God were so great and awesome then he wouldn't have cut the man's spinal cord in the first place, now would he?

FLAME ON BITCHES! Remember, YOU had to bring religion into this.

King James Bible
"Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed onto all men, for all have sinned"
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%205:12 (Romans 5:12)

New International Version
"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-19.htm (1 John 5:19)

New World Translation
"At that time the eyes of the blind will be opened, And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. At that time the lame will leap like the deer, And the tongue of the speechless will shout for joy. For waters will burst forth in the wilderness,
And streams in the desert plain."
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/23/35#h=949:0-952:0 (Isaiah 35:5,6)

New International Version
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+peter+3%3A9&version=NIV (2 Peter 3:9)

King James Bible
"And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Revelation-21-3_21-4/ (Revelation 21:3 - 21:4)

And if God were so great and awesome then he wouldn't have cut the man's spinal cord in the first place, now would he?

FLAME ON BITCHES! Remember, YOU had to bring religion into this.

King James Bible
"Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed onto all men, for all have sinned"
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%205:12 (Romans 5:12)

New International Version
"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-19.htm (1 John 5:19)

New World Translation
"At that time the eyes of the blind will be opened, And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. At that time the lame will leap like the deer, And the tongue of the speechless will shout for joy. For waters will burst forth in the wilderness,
And streams in the desert plain."
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/23/35#h=949:0-952:0 (Isaiah 35:5,6)

New International Version
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+peter+3%3A9&version=NIV (2 Peter 3:9)

King James Bible
"And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Revelation-21-3_21-4/ (Revelation 21:3 - 21:4)

Yeah, he also offered up a great way to solve the problem. Remember, Jeebus also said that he didn't come to change god's law and that the old testament would stand until the end of time. So this applies as well. Guess we should follow the bible and stone people to death for looking at someone with lust. Still seem like a smart man to you?

Yeah, he also offered up a great way to solve the problem. Remember, Jeebus also said that he didn't come to change god's law and that the old testament would stand until the end of time. So this applies as well. Guess we should follow the bible and stone people to death for looking at someone with lust. Still seem like a smart man to you?

Perhaps he wasn't god, but jesus was a very smart man: https://www.biblegateway.com/p...

Paul is the one saying they shouldn't make Gentiles conform to their customs and *he's* the unreasonable cult one? Umm...okay...

The Gnostic Gospels contradict all kinds of things, which is a lot of the reason why they were excluded from canon...fairly or unfairly is kind of another argument. Either the official ones are full of crap, or the "illuminated" ones are, or somewhere in between.

Differences include things like the shift from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom

Well, if we're going to limit ourselves to the Gospels as you say...

My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.

Hell, it seems like Jesus spends half the Gospels trying to get the disciples (and others) to stop asking him when he's going to start his earthly kingdom.

Thanks for the explanations.

It may be more about the price tag than anything else.

Ezekiel 23:20

What version of the Bible is that!?

A lusty one!

"No religion condones the killing of innocents."

The obvious loophole being how you define "innocent." Doesn't Mohammed have a lot to say about how anyone who won't become a Muslim is an enemy of Islam and must be destroyed or something?

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. - John 15:5-6

It's in reference to Judgment Day, not any call to action on humans' part. "Picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" is referring to being thrown into hell, which is doctrinally something God does and humans have no control over (the physical punishment part, that is).

Matthew 15

The entire story is about how he is pointing out that the Pharisees are hypocrites, as noted in the other comment. There's a recurring thread in the Gospels about how the Pharisees were always trying to trip up Jesus by coming up with ways where he would technically be violating the ceremonial law. In context here, Jesus is basically telling them to STFU.

Genesis 6:6-7

Again, talking about God causing the flood. Not a call to any sort of action on our part.

Numbers 31

Okay, you actually managed to find one argument that wasn't totally uninformed. Yes, in the Old Testament, there was a lot of razing of cities that resisted the Israelites or were labelled "obstinate" or what-have-you, which is rather hard to justify. I'll just say, sidestepping that issue somewhat, that this falls under "Christians say not to do that anymore...Muslim imams are currently endorsing this very thing so they should grow up like we did."

I find it a bit funny that the first 3 links are all to a facebook image. But go figure.

The damage is ongoing. Using public funds and lands to support the church sends a message to all non-Christians that they are not represented by the government. I imagine your position would suddenly reverse if government assets were used to promote a hate group that targeted you.

The damage is ongoing. Using public funds and lands to support the church sends a message to all non-Christians that they are not represented by the government. I imagine your position would suddenly reverse if government assets were used to promote a hate group that targeted you.

No, you cannot obtain a divorce in the normal sense as a Roman Catholic. The closest you can get is an annulment.

A decree of nullity does not dissolve a marriage. It declares that a specific union, thought to be a marriage by all appearances, did not include, from the beginning, the proper intentions and/or capacities for a valid marriage according to Church teaching and thus was not fully valid.

There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment. See also Matthew 5:31-2 and Matthew 19. My family used to joke that they believed in murder but not divorce, as a way to keep the relevant spouse on their toes. You should try again with a different analogy.

It was the basin in the temple - in Exodus I think. Diameter 10 cubits, circumference 30 cubits. To one significant digit, that is the correct value for Pi. On the other hand, remember that a 'cubit' is the distance from your fingertips to your elbow. You would be lucky if you used 40 men and got even one significant digit correct. They wouldn't use women in those days. If you used men for the circumference and women for the diameter you probably would get a value for Pi of less than 3.0.

1 Kings 7:23

I like how people defend this stupid bullshit by saying that it's not meant to be taken literally. Guess what? Even if it's not meant to be taken literally, it's still just as retarded as ever.

Why is using an idiom that we still use today "retarded"? You've never heard the phrases "solid as a rock", "immoveable as the earth", or "the sun rises"? For goodness sake, theres even a famous Hemmingway novel titled "The Sun Also Rises", why does noone remark on how retarded Hemmingway is?

The Bible has many books in many genres. Psalms is neither scientific treatise nor historical record; its a collection of songs and poems. It uses simile, allegory, and metaphor.

And if it's not meant to be taken literally, then why do idiots buy into *any* of it?

Because there is such a thing as "genre" and "context". In the Psalm being referred to, the following literary devices are used
Simile:
  * The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment
  * he stretches out the heavens like a tent
  * You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment
Metaphor:
  * He makes the clouds his chariot
  * and rides on the wings of the wind.
  * He makes winds his messengers,
  * flames of fire his servants.
Anthropomorphism:
  * The high mountains belong to the wild goats
* [The springs] give water to all the beasts of the field;
Hyperbole:
  * teeming with creatures beyond number

I dont think its unreasonable to look at all that, see something like "the sun rises" or "the earth is immoveable" and think "yea, thats yet more poetic language". Contrast with Chronicles or Kings where there is a focus on facts and a lot less poetic language, and you can see a clear differentiation of genre.

I have found that generally people making claims like

since it's obviously rife with stories that aren't literal

tend not to be well versed in what it actually says and instead are repeating things theyve seen elsewhere, which tend to be quite wrong (for instance Zeitgeist's claims about Osiris / Jesus, or the claim that the Bible says pi=3). There is a sad irony, because all too often the people crying for Christians to listen to facts and be reasonable are neither interested in fact nor in a reasonable discussion.

Are you trolling me, or are you really so lazy that you can't use Google?

These were not spoken by Jesus, but still in the New Testament.

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

Are you trolling me, or are you really so lazy that you can't use Google?

These were not spoken by Jesus, but still in the New Testament.

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

Are you trolling me, or are you really so lazy that you can't use Google?

These were not spoken by Jesus, but still in the New Testament.

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

You are really going there? Fine. How about Vladimir Lenin and Mao Tse-tung as great examples of atheists. They are proof that any random atheist is willing to kill MILLIONS in order to obtain power. This argument is patently absurd.

Sorry, but Jesus did not condone murder (Luke 22, verses 49-51)
http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

Sort of like in the movies when a mafia hit man kills somebody and then goes to confession. He is fooling himself.

So you can believe anything you want; but you cannot act on it? That's downright religious of you... Imagine if someone said, "Hey, its cool if you're gay and all, just don't act on it".

Saving people some time: this post is more useful for believers who want some scriptures and guidance, and not an internet argument with a christian AC. Thanks in advance for your time, and apologies for the length
The source [little "followed", even by many supposed followers] already clarifies this ...
Leviticus 18:22: "And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing."

What is detestable is the act, and though a sin, is not necessarily separate from sins many "heterosexuals" commit, like sex before or outside of marriage. From 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: (snip) "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men" (snip) "will inherit God’s kingdom."

My point is coming with the next verse, # 11. The "just don't act on it" part you mentioned:
"And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God."

This doesn't suggest it's easy or that there's an off switch from people looking for God. Through Jesus' words, he confirmed there will be moments of need during the current order, which was brought about by wilfull acts from Adam and Eve long ago:
Matthew 6:31-34: "So never be anxious and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or, ‘What are we to drink?’ or, ‘What are we to put on?’ For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. For your heavenly Father knows you need all these things. "Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you. So, never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Sufficient for each day is its own badness."

And following God strongly suggests avoiding relying on our own for those difficulties
Nahum 1:7: "Jehovah(*) is good, a stronghold in the day of distress. And he is cognizant of those seeking refuge in him."
Romans 12:12: "Rejoice in the hope. Endure under tribulation. Persevere in prayer."

Which will end come his kingdom:
Revelation 21:3, 4: "With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."

Meanwhile, to christian followers in an imperfect world, the hatred is not to the imperfect people they may be for now, but this and many other acts that are clearly outlined. Few christians remember this:
John 13:34, 35: "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves."
1 John 4:8: "He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love."

* Jehovah is the personal name God revealed through his word, the bible. Even despite wolves among the flock (Acts 20:29, 30) successfully obscuring it, you can still see it in King James and many other translations even if just once NOT translated as simply "the lord".

Seriously, the Povery Level is directly tied to the minimum wage. If you raise one, you automatically raise the other.

In the late 1990's Minimum wage was $4.75/hr, and the poverty level was approximately $16k/yr.

Now, it's $7.25/hr and the poverty level is approximately $24k/yr - both increased by the same proportion of approximately 52%.

The "War on Poverty" is certainly one to fail (Deutoronomy 15:11
Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8), however "humane" it may be. Raising minimum wages will not help to "win" the war, only make the goal that much harder.

Seriously, the Povery Level is directly tied to the minimum wage. If you raise one, you automatically raise the other.

In the late 1990's Minimum wage was $4.75/hr, and the poverty level was approximately $16k/yr.

Now, it's $7.25/hr and the poverty level is approximately $24k/yr - both increased by the same proportion of approximately 52%.

The "War on Poverty" is certainly one to fail (Deutoronomy 15:11
Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8), however "humane" it may be. Raising minimum wages will not help to "win" the war, only make the goal that much harder.

Seriously, the Povery Level is directly tied to the minimum wage. If you raise one, you automatically raise the other.

In the late 1990's Minimum wage was $4.75/hr, and the poverty level was approximately $16k/yr.

Now, it's $7.25/hr and the poverty level is approximately $24k/yr - both increased by the same proportion of approximately 52%.

The "War on Poverty" is certainly one to fail (Deutoronomy 15:11
Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8), however "humane" it may be. Raising minimum wages will not help to "win" the war, only make the goal that much harder.

Don't be put off because of its religious origin - it's the demonstration of a point that has been known for thousands of years.

Of course no one but a church could possibly hope to run charities, food shelves, hospitals and orphanages.

Of course not. There are plenty of charities that do this that are not churches. Even the government (in theory) does some of this work too.

Unfortunately, they do not do enough of it - especially in this political climate of "makers and moochers" - so despite what you may hear about a few "wealth theology" abominations, most churches (and synagogues, and temples and mosques etc.) actually do a lot of work to patch up the truly evil state of the US "safety net". Just near me, local churches provide homeless shelters, food banks, cheap to free meeting space for support groups and if all else fails, a steady stream of volunteers for simply doing such work. BTW, I live in fairly large, affluent and nominally "liberal" city and these problems are still widespread.

And this is why churches have traditionally been given tax-exempt status - along with other organizations that do such work. Not because they are churches but because of the work they do.

The vast majority of us in worship communities would welcome help of any kind. For my part, I don't care if you are an atheist or an animist: If you want to do the work of the Kingdom, then I say that what we have in common is far more important than a few ontological squabbles.

In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.

I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible ... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.

Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho, right?

Then the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.["] ... Joshua commanded the army, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted* to the Lord ... so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys... Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord's house... So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.

Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.

This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:

All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.

See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.

Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this is him saying to commit genocide:

For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to remove all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon.

Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?

The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.

*The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them

In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.

I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible ... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.

Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho, right?

Then the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.["] ... Joshua commanded the army, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted* to the Lord ... so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys... Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord's house... So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.

Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.

This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:

All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.

See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.

Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this is him saying to commit genocide:

For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to remove all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon.

Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?

The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.

*The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them

Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money.

Christianity? Funny, that reminds me of this guy Jesus who said something about not obsessing about money - in fact you should give it all to the poor to get a treasure in Heaven (funny how bibilical literalists never interpret that part literally). Good thing American Evangelicals are here to set the record right.

Bitcoin and others have come about because a need has been recognized. What is the need? A stable currency that can't be as easily manipulated at the whim of the issuing agency? Yeah, that's probably the need they're addressing.

Internet cash, actually: a fast and convenient way of making payment from person to person without trusting the sender, recipient or any third parties.

Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money.

Christianity? Funny, that reminds me of this guy Jesus who said something about not obsessing about money - in fact you should give it all to the poor to get a treasure in Heaven (funny how bibilical literalists never interpret that part literally). Good thing American Evangelicals are here to set the record right.

Bitcoin and others have come about because a need has been recognized. What is the need? A stable currency that can't be as easily manipulated at the whim of the issuing agency? Yeah, that's probably the need they're addressing.

Internet cash, actually: a fast and convenient way of making payment from person to person without trusting the sender, recipient or any third parties.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

SPOILER ALERT: At the end of the book, the main character is executed by the government.

If you mean hating an ideology that wants to subdue or kill all others ....

It certainly isn't impossible to find stuff that implies that in the Koran. However, it isn't impossible to find stuff that implies that in The Bible either. Cherry-pick a verse here or there, and it can look pretty bad. It misses the point of the religion completely to do that, but I've seen it done.

So out of curiosity, do you hate Christianity too, or are you just being selective about which religion you apply those standards to?

For any Christian reading the parent and thinking perhaps its fine to throw the word "hate" around like this, I'd advise you go reread I Corinthians 13 and think about your own failures for a while. We are supposed to be better than that.

Ok, I try to avoid getting involved in religious conversations like this, but you are coming across as a typical ignorant elitist here, sneering down at things you clearly don't understand. We all get that you aren't religious, but that doesn't give you the right to present skewed information taken out of context. So, I'm going to completely waste my time here and present some *actual* information on each one of your points in the vain hope that in the future you will temper your snark.

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!

What you aren't saying, is that at the time selling children into slavery was a common practice throughout much of the "civilized" world. This 'law' was put in to place to *protect women*. The reason why is that normally when a child was sold into servitude, they would be freed after a period of time. Since (by far) the reason that women were taken as 'servants' or ('hand-maidens' depending on the interpretation) was as second wives or concubines, it was grossly unfair to the woman to then release her from service after she had been used as a sex object for years. No one would want to marry her, and she was essentially screwed. To protect against that, this law was put into place saying essentially, that if you're going to take this woman on, you have to care for her forever, you can't just have sex with her for a few years while she's pretty and then kick her out once she gets older.

2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!

Again, you're totally cherry picking here. Leviticus rules of cleanliness were generally *good* things. At the time, they simply didn't understand biology, and sanitary practices were spotty at best. This was the origin of laying down some rules for sanitary practices, which is a good thing, even if they seem strange to us now. And by the way, Leviticus' admonishments were by no means limited only to women:

Leviticus 1-5:
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge; whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening."

This was relating to abnormal discharge, no one really understood STD's, they were just doing their best at the time. But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female in order to push some sort of agenda.

3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!

Again, you're totally misrepresenting the law here. A the time, this was incredibly progressive. Slavery was rampant and commonly accepted, to limit the bounds of slavery and who could be enslaved was a great step in the right direction. Considering that even the U.S. still hadn't worked out slavery issues as of only 140 years ago, applying 21st century morals to a progressive law created to put bounds and limits on slavery thousands of years ago... well, that's just childish.

4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!

I don't even understand your point here. Are you saying this is still a problem? I mean, I agree - we need to stop the rampant slaughter of all the people who work on Sundays in America. Oh wait... you mean, this doesn't happen? At all? So, clearly it was a law intended for another time - a time that penalties were pretty damn harsh for just about any infraction. There's some question about how tightly this was int

I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
7. Can I get a haircut? No!

Yup, good book that.

At the risk and possible personal embarrassment of being called a shameful name like Republican, I'll just say this. But I'll only apply it to criminals.

2 Thessalonians 3:10

I would not apply it to people who don't work through no fault of their own.

Other modern translations: Ephesians: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... Timothy: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... The passage in Timothy is telling Christians to not complain, and to act in humility, even when they're being oppressed. The passage in Ephesians is saying the same thing. Here's the thing: Read 1 Peter 2:13: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... which tells Christians to obey the law. In the old days, the law allowed for slaves; in the present day, it doesn't. The point is to always obey the law. As for Revelation: Many down-to-earth Christians believe it cannot be interpreted correctly in the present day. Some believe it is talking about the past; some believe it is a prophesy of things to take place in the future. No one who's emotionally healthy believes it's a literal book. Additionally, all that passage is implying is that (1) there is a creator, (2) he doesn't like those personality traits, (3) people with those traits are not going to be saved from [either the Earth's eventual destruction or "hell", I'm not quite clear on that].

Other modern translations: Ephesians: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... Timothy: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... The passage in Timothy is telling Christians to not complain, and to act in humility, even when they're being oppressed. The passage in Ephesians is saying the same thing. Here's the thing: Read 1 Peter 2:13: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... which tells Christians to obey the law. In the old days, the law allowed for slaves; in the present day, it doesn't. The point is to always obey the law. As for Revelation: Many down-to-earth Christians believe it cannot be interpreted correctly in the present day. Some believe it is talking about the past; some believe it is a prophesy of things to take place in the future. No one who's emotionally healthy believes it's a literal book. Additionally, all that passage is implying is that (1) there is a creator, (2) he doesn't like those personality traits, (3) people with those traits are not going to be saved from [either the Earth's eventual destruction or "hell", I'm not quite clear on that].

Other modern translations: Ephesians: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... Timothy: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... The passage in Timothy is telling Christians to not complain, and to act in humility, even when they're being oppressed. The passage in Ephesians is saying the same thing. Here's the thing: Read 1 Peter 2:13: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... which tells Christians to obey the law. In the old days, the law allowed for slaves; in the present day, it doesn't. The point is to always obey the law. As for Revelation: Many down-to-earth Christians believe it cannot be interpreted correctly in the present day. Some believe it is talking about the past; some believe it is a prophesy of things to take place in the future. No one who's emotionally healthy believes it's a literal book. Additionally, all that passage is implying is that (1) there is a creator, (2) he doesn't like those personality traits, (3) people with those traits are not going to be saved from [either the Earth's eventual destruction or "hell", I'm not quite clear on that].

It's "thou shalt not murder,"

It's actually Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce, and the translation is normally held to be "Thou shalt not kill" on the basis that is what the KJV translates it as. Other more modern translations use "kill" rather than "murder". Nice selective translation, though.

No, the translation is not "normally" held to be "... kill." Especially not because of the KJV. The modern English translations, including the most popular ones, translate the word as "murder". See, for example, the New International Version, the New American Standard, the Amplified Bible, even the New King James Version. Also, an old, but literal translation, the aptly-named Young's Literal Translation, translates it as "Thou dost not murder." Take a look at the other translations on that site and note how the vast majority translate the word as "murder." Pretty much the only modern, widely-used, translation that uses "kill" is the New Jerusalem Bible.

And FYI, the "Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce" can be romanized as "rasah", a term that while hard to pin down the exact meaning of, scholars generally agree means more than simply "kill". This site has some discussion of it.

It's also notable that the Bible explicitly mentions the death penalty as acceptable: "Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." -- Numbers 35:30. So perhaps that will refresh the memory of the AC a few posts up who "[didn't] recall any exceptions for "Oh but if the other guy killed someone else that's O.K, you know?"

It's "thou shalt not murder,"

It's actually Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce, and the translation is normally held to be "Thou shalt not kill" on the basis that is what the KJV translates it as. Other more modern translations use "kill" rather than "murder". Nice selective translation, though.

No, the translation is not "normally" held to be "... kill." Especially not because of the KJV. The modern English translations, including the most popular ones, translate the word as "murder". See, for example, the New International Version, the New American Standard, the Amplified Bible, even the New King James Version. Also, an old, but literal translation, the aptly-named Young's Literal Translation, translates it as "Thou dost not murder." Take a look at the other translations on that site and note how the vast majority translate the word as "murder." Pretty much the only modern, widely-used, translation that uses "kill" is the New Jerusalem Bible.

And FYI, the "Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce" can be romanized as "rasah", a term that while hard to pin down the exact meaning of, scholars generally agree means more than simply "kill". This site has some discussion of it.

It's also notable that the Bible explicitly mentions the death penalty as acceptable: "Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." -- Numbers 35:30. So perhaps that will refresh the memory of the AC a few posts up who "[didn't] recall any exceptions for "Oh but if the other guy killed someone else that's O.K, you know?"

It's "thou shalt not murder,"

It's actually Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce, and the translation is normally held to be "Thou shalt not kill" on the basis that is what the KJV translates it as. Other more modern translations use "kill" rather than "murder". Nice selective translation, though.

No, the translation is not "normally" held to be "... kill." Especially not because of the KJV. The modern English translations, including the most popular ones, translate the word as "murder". See, for example, the New International Version, the New American Standard, the Amplified Bible, even the New King James Version. Also, an old, but literal translation, the aptly-named Young's Literal Translation, translates it as "Thou dost not murder." Take a look at the other translations on that site and note how the vast majority translate the word as "murder." Pretty much the only modern, widely-used, translation that uses "kill" is the New Jerusalem Bible.

And FYI, the "Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce" can be romanized as "rasah", a term that while hard to pin down the exact meaning of, scholars generally agree means more than simply "kill". This site has some discussion of it.

It's also notable that the Bible explicitly mentions the death penalty as acceptable: "Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." -- Numbers 35:30. So perhaps that will refresh the memory of the AC a few posts up who "[didn't] recall any exceptions for "Oh but if the other guy killed someone else that's O.K, you know?"

It's "thou shalt not murder,"

It's actually Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce, and the translation is normally held to be "Thou shalt not kill" on the basis that is what the KJV translates it as. Other more modern translations use "kill" rather than "murder". Nice selective translation, though.

No, the translation is not "normally" held to be "... kill." Especially not because of the KJV. The modern English translations, including the most popular ones, translate the word as "murder". See, for example, the New International Version, the New American Standard, the Amplified Bible, even the New King James Version. Also, an old, but literal translation, the aptly-named Young's Literal Translation, translates it as "Thou dost not murder." Take a look at the other translations on that site and note how the vast majority translate the word as "murder." Pretty much the only modern, widely-used, translation that uses "kill" is the New Jerusalem Bible.

And FYI, the "Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce" can be romanized as "rasah", a term that while hard to pin down the exact meaning of, scholars generally agree means more than simply "kill". This site has some discussion of it.

It's also notable that the Bible explicitly mentions the death penalty as acceptable: "Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." -- Numbers 35:30. So perhaps that will refresh the memory of the AC a few posts up who "[didn't] recall any exceptions for "Oh but if the other guy killed someone else that's O.K, you know?"

It's "thou shalt not murder,"

It's actually Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce, and the translation is normally held to be "Thou shalt not kill" on the basis that is what the KJV translates it as. Other more modern translations use "kill" rather than "murder". Nice selective translation, though.

No, the translation is not "normally" held to be "... kill." Especially not because of the KJV. The modern English translations, including the most popular ones, translate the word as "murder". See, for example, the New International Version, the New American Standard, the Amplified Bible, even the New King James Version. Also, an old, but literal translation, the aptly-named Young's Literal Translation, translates it as "Thou dost not murder." Take a look at the other translations on that site and note how the vast majority translate the word as "murder." Pretty much the only modern, widely-used, translation that uses "kill" is the New Jerusalem Bible.

And FYI, the "Hebrew that Slashdot won't reproduce" can be romanized as "rasah", a term that while hard to pin down the exact meaning of, scholars generally agree means more than simply "kill". This site has some discussion of it.

It's also notable that the Bible explicitly mentions the death penalty as acceptable: "Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." -- Numbers 35:30. So perhaps that will refresh the memory of the AC a few posts up who "[didn't] recall any exceptions for "Oh but if the other guy killed someone else that's O.K, you know?"