Slashdot Mirror

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?"

Actually you miss the context of 1Co26. That passage isn't referring to intelligence per se, but to those who think they are more intelligent than God (like, for instance, those individuals quoted by the original thread author).

The thing that struck me in reading all of those quotes is that Russell seems to have been unaware (ignorant?) of the parable of the shrewd (intelligent?) manager. Cf. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:1-15&version=NLT

Even if it gets wired somehow, the visual cortex would has to adapt to the new signal... something that doesn't normally happen in adults. Oliver Sacks wrote about one patient that had some visual impairment fixed (cataract, IIRC) after being effectively blind for 40 years. After the surgery he was overwhelmed by the unexpected (to the brain) flow of visual information, which he couldn't make sense of, and regretted the decision to have his eyes fixed.

There is a difference between giving vision to someone who never had it and changing the input to a functioning visual cortex. There was some guy who did an experiment where he made "inverting glasses" that turned his visual field upside-down and it only took him a few days to get used to it. So I expect that this technique could be used effectively for folks who have damaged retinas (like the poor sod above who lost a spot of his vision due to errant lasers).

(And for another interesting story along these lines, have a look at this two-step healing from Mark's Gospel. First Jesus healed the man's eyes, but then he had to heal his head to make it work!)

Well, here they are:

FIRST COMMANDMENT
      I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

SECOND COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not make unto 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 water under the earth

...snip..

Those aren't the ten commandments, these are: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34&version=NIV

(Pay particular attention to verse 28)

Actually, you are wrong. Wrong.

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Romans 2:12-15

The Bible is a muddled and contradictory beast. It also says:

16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+24&version=KJV

He that caused blemish to a man shall have it done to him. He that kills a man shall be put to death.

Seems like a pretty clear instruction to we humans to carry out punishments (and not wait for god to do it) to me. And of course, the New Testament goes off in a different direction on the matter entirely.

I pity anyone who actually tries to live by that nonsense...

Ahem:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17-22&version=KJV

17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

Unless the King James Version Bible isn't Christian enough for you?

Not, of course, that it impacts my point. The New Testament specifically disowns this sentiment ("turn the other cheek" etc.) because it's way too brutal. And my point was, even that "way too brutal" sentiment is less brutal than what some of our internet tough-guy friends are spouting off.

Actually, they were married - the first couple, wed by God. In fact, the passage in Genesis refers to the "man" (Adam) and his "wife" (Eve) for a long time before ever mentioning her name as being Eve!

'Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.'

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23-25&version=ESV

Then God was pleased, for he could cast the sinning Eve as the first human that the kind and loving God tossed into the lake of fire, to be tortured forever and ever, Amen.

When you have a new toy, you can hardly wait to try it out.

They tell me that it was the serpent that did the ceremony. And that Cain married someone who was not a sibling, nor an ape.

Actually, they were married - the first couple, wed by God. In fact, the passage in Genesis refers to the "man" (Adam) and his "wife" (Eve) for a long time before ever mentioning her name as being Eve!

'Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.'

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23-25&version=ESV

Then God was pleased, for he could cast the sinning Eve as the first human that the kind and loving God tossed into the lake of fire, to be tortured forever and ever, Amen.

When you have a new toy, you can hardly wait to try it out.

Actually, they were married - the first couple, wed by God. In fact, the passage in Genesis refers to the "man" (Adam) and his "wife" (Eve) for a long time before ever mentioning her name as being Eve!

'Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.'

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23-25&version=ESV

This is what I keyed off of (which is, incidentally, what your Wikipedia cite refers to).

I'm thinking that someone at Wikipedia was more or less asleep at the switch. ;)

To me a few things from the Bible are consistent enough to sustain my faith.

Such as?

The enduring hatred of the Jews by the Arabs. The protection of the Jewish nation by the US even though it cost us hundreds of $billions in military expenditures and higher oil prices.

I can't tell, is this part of what sustains your faith? It would be rather strange if it were.

How else are the Nations supposed to see the two witnesses lie dead in the streets of Jerusalem without the internet and cell phones?

Ah, Revelation. Good mythology. Helps to sell fiction and non-fiction alike.

Maybe you will get to see that live. I don't plan on being around.

Hello, Gospel of Mark!

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

The End Times were supposed to have happened. The prophecy failed. That alone should tell you how bullshit the Bible is, nevermind all the fanciful imaginings you find in Revelation.

Beat you to it: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28&version=NIV

I was self publishing my zombie story back in 78 AD. Started as Torah fan fiction and just kind of snowballed from there.

(oh, and touching it wasn't forbidden, just eating the fruit. [Genesis 2:16-17).

In a way, it depends on which verse you look at. In 3:3, Eve tells the serpent that even touching the fruit was forbidden. Naturally, that raises the question of why Eve would change what they were told.

There's a lot more subtle detail to this stuff than most people realize.

Occam's Razor would point towards translation/transcription error. keep in mind the oldest copies of the bible are in greek and predate whiteout by quite a bit. It just takes one "fuck I mis-worded that last sentence... well it's not worth trashing an expensive piece of paper and all the time to re-coppy the whole section over." and you have your inconstancy accounted for with no deeper meaning.

(oh, and touching it wasn't forbidden, just eating the fruit. [Genesis 2:16-17).

In a way, it depends on which verse you look at. In 3:3, Eve tells the serpent that even touching the fruit was forbidden. Naturally, that raises the question of why Eve would change what they were told.

There's a lot more subtle detail to this stuff than most people realize.

Bakunin was right after all...

No, Bakunin was either ill-informed, or deliberately misguiding. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden, not knowledge in general (oh, and touching it wasn't forbidden, just eating the fruit. [Genesis 2:16-17). Why was it forbidden? Perhaps because without that knowledge we wouldn't experience guilt, or shame, or fear. Without that knowledge we wouldn't be held accountable for our sins.

Christians are told to ignore Leviticus (except for sexual stuff mostly). It's in Acts 15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NIV if you would like to be enlightened.

I can continue listing other domestic terrorism by Christians.

And don't even try the "they aren't true Christians" nonsense.

A random dictionary's definition of christian:a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ

I would *add* that "believing" is not enough, and practicing is where the true follower is...
But Jesus gave his own litmus test, so why must you and I try to define "true" christian and waste time with the "no true scottsman fallacy": "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35)
There is no "love" in blowing people up and doing what some of these churches are individually doing to blemish the name of who they claim to follow. Jesus knew this about the wolves entering the flock. See Acts 20:29. The net result? false doctrine and interpretation create a rift between people and God.

Being one third of the holy trinity, he was his own father... how could he possibly disobey himself?

It's just another plot hole in the Great Omniscient Book.

Jesus also says that he's not here to change any of the old laws, that all the old laws still apply.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A18-19&version=KJV

They just don't apply to him because he's the son of god. Or something.

It's a bit like star football players, they basically get a free pass on obeying the school rules.

Am I the only one that thinks this event is a little creepy?

You would write an OS that wouldn't let you kill a rogue process?

Depends: are the processes dumb servers like in today's computers, inferior even to the simplest of bacteria, or fully sapient beings like us? Because the substrate is less important than what's standing on it.

Besides, your attempt at belittling humans is, of course, completely incompatible with Bible itself, which have God himself declaring humans as kinda big deal:

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 âoeWhoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;br> for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

When the user wants a processes terminated, it gets terminated. Who is the program to complain?

In this case, something the user himself declared as users "image" worthy of having anyone attempting such termination be held accountable ("terminated" themselves). Which might actually extend to the user himself, if one is willing to make such theological connections about certain famous events in New Testament...

You were so close to the answer.

Genesis 5:3-4. "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5%3A3-4&version=NIV

HTH.

I'd guess that 1/2 of $20 bottles of wine are enjoyable as opposed to about 1/5 of $8 bottles.

From the expected value standpoint, you're breaking even (5*$8 = 2*$20). Less the sip or two you need for tasting purposes.

However -- and this is the important part -- after finishing the good bottle, you've got 4 cheap ones to go, vs. 1 moderately priced good one and an unfortunately overpriced clinker. And like the Bible says, you serve the good one first and save the rest for when you're all a little more mellow.

(Obviously, you scale up the number of bottles if you're expecting company*. Jesus was working with amphorae, after all.)

*I know, this is Slashdot, but it can happen. We're talking statistics, after all.

Its odd you'd bring Christians up; Im one myself, and last time I checked one of the core doctrines was the fallen nature of man:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:10-19&version=NIV

All have turned away,
        they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
        not even one.”[a]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
        their tongues practice deceit.

You could argue that Christianity gets it wrong, but this is perhaps the most obviously true of all christian doctrines: All you have to do is open your history book, flip to a random page, and read about how man's feet are "swift to shed blood".

"Deciding to be better people" is utopian nonsense. People can try to do better, and should try to do good; but the notion that that is sufficient to make people "good" -- in the face of all the evil in the world-- is nonsense.

I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians

Presumably you're not referring to

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

because the only evidence (in the sense of "something connected with the real world as observed through the senses and extensions thereof") is that "is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead" (there are certainly enough people preaching that, so it's hard to deny that it is so preached). Presumably "you" in "some of you" refers to Christians, so "because we're not Christians and don't believe Christ has been raised from the dead" is not an answer.

Now, "Christ was raised, but he's a special case" is, in the context of that translation, a valid answer; it doesn't say "it is preached that we shall all be raised from the dead", it just says "Christ has been raised from the dead".

As for the rest of the if-then statements, well, perhaps the "then" statements he makes are true; maybe the people to whom he wrote those letters wouldn't have wanted to hear that, but that just leaves them with a choice - if you hear "if A, then B", and don't like hearing "B", you can either grit your teeth and accept "B" or abandon "A".

As for verses 35 on, I see no evidence, I just see a bunch of assumptions, such as "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

I'm religious because there's a mathematical proof of the existence of God, by Kurt Godel none-the-less, and his math looks good.

"His math looks good" just means "if the axioms are held true, then the conclusions are also true". Another if-then there, and be very careful about saying "the axioms must be true, they're self-evident". Some might think the parallel postulate self-evident, but we don't live on a flat sheet, so it's not true for the geometry of the surface on which we live.

If he caused $600,000 worth of damage, didn't he destroy his life himself?

Perhaps. Then again, seeing how the victim is Sony, I can't help but remember the parable of the unmerciful servant. But I guess personal responsibility is just for peons.

Genesis 5:3
He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created.

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Humanity per se created, and given rather Darwinian directives incompatible with staying in a garden.

Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

Sixth "day" ends.

Genesis 2:5
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

As noted in the footnote, "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here. My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.

Genesis 6:21
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

And with this act suggestive of genetic engineering from a DNA source, which you will mock as written here and would immediately assent to if you read this exact same thing as a broad description of a modern-day cloning procedure, let your futile mockery resume.

On your other points:
2) Learn how sets work.
3) It unquestionably symbolizes a great many things. Your incredulity on the matter doesn't override actual scholarship and the text itself.
4) Yes, it is.

I'll comment on that if I ever get past the old testament - man that book is boring....

What was he supposed to do? It's not his fault Apple makes such sexy hardware.

Please observe the symbol on reverse side of your Apple product, facing away from the screen. Look at that: A tasty apple, with a bite taken out.

The fool. He picks up an internet connected device marked with the symbol of man's descent into sin(and nakedness) and then is surprised when his concupiscent flesh is besotted with unclothed harlots? Isn't that the most plausible outcome?

They trace their Christian heritage to the Ethopian that rode in his chariot while Philip in the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:26-40

Re: Your sig: "...Dear God, I would like to file a bug report..."

It's already been filed.

OFF TOPIC but hey, what's life without whimsy?
Ezekiel 23:20: (Complete Jewish Bible) "Yes, she lusted after their male prostitutes, whose members are like those of donkeys and who ejaculate like stallions."
Go here and look at all the differences there are between versions. This is an interesting translation from the Hebrew Bible: "And 'Tagva' the 'Flgshihm' which meat - meat and pump serious horse discharge to" To bad Hebrew plays so much havoc with articles and google sucks at translating non Aryan languages.

Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit. This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil."

The actual quote:

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

This is an important distinction. When a man loves money more than personal morals and ethics, only then does his business become unethical.

What about the other major religions?

There are some pretty explicit food laws in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Chapter 14 of Deuteronomy gives a good list. 14:19 says, "And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten." This is presumably referring to insects, so they're out. Also out are pigs, camels, rabbits, anything from the water that doesn't have scales and fins (God hates shrimp!), any animal that "dies of itself" (i.e., carrion), and a smattering of other animals -- no eating bats, people.

Anyone who is actually keeping kosher will follow these laws, which means most Orthodox Jews and many other Jews. Not many Christians follow these dietary laws, but some do.

ok "bassbeast" did you run through the lights with the "beast" and the woman too? Sure seems like most have.. the "snare", the "big club".

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=antichrist&qs_version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=anti+christ&qs_version=KJV

and likely more

ok "bassbeast" did you run through the lights with the "beast" and the woman too? Sure seems like most have.. the "snare", the "big club".

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=antichrist&qs_version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=anti+christ&qs_version=KJV

and likely more

What terrifies me is people that believe the ONLY source of morality is exactly that in the form of their religion. When some one makes claims like that, what they really just said is "I see no reason not to rip you apart with my bare hands right now except the external moral authority told me not too and/or/because I would be punished if I did".

I'll apologize in advance for continuing this way off topic thread. I don't typically respond to AC's, but I'll make an exception. I am a Christian, and I make no secret of it. If you (not you specifically, but any person in general) believe the teachings of the Christian church, that means you believe that there is only one God, and faith in Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation. If you believe in Christ, you understand that there is no way that you on your own could ever "good enough" to obtain eternal life in Heaven (Romans 3:20-24), so you don't behave out of fear of punishment. Jesus Christ has already paid for the punishment that everyone deserves for their sins. You behave because of what Christ has commanded you to do: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:30-31). I'll be the first to admit that I, like many Christians, fall short of this standard on many occasions.

And I'm really off topic but I think religious believers should get the help they need for their condition. That is, when you find out your full grown friend or coworker seriously believes in the Easter Bunny you wouldn't shoot him or take his kids, you'd try to help him. Remember, these people are a combination of a handful of nutty bars and opportunistic power hungry people up to no good but mainly victims of life long brainwashing and conditioning.

I don't need any help, and don't need have any condition. I don't want to wield any control over anyone else, and there aren't any people in the church who are trying to wield power over me. It's not like as if Christians, or people of any other religion have a monopoly over love of power, we've seen that with terrible effect in many 20th/21st century secular states.

I grew up in the church, but I wouldn't say that I really understood it, and wasn't really too committed to the little I did understand. Then I went to college and fell far away from my Christian faith. I was somewhere between atheist and agnostic during that time. I neither knew, nor cared if there was a God. I believed everything in the world could be answered naturalistically and science could answer all mankind's questions.

After I got married, my wife wanted to go to church, so I started going with her. I am a skeptic by nature, and a lot of questions I wanted answered. I decided that if there really could be a God, then that must be the most important thing there could be to know, so I started doing lots of research. I searched for answers to the questions I had, both from skeptics and Christian apologetic/theological sources. Somehow, I usually found the skeptics' answers ringing hollow. The apologetic answers were structured in a more logically consistent manner, and made more sense to me. After much study, thought and prayer, I eventually came back to faith in God. I also know that this was not due to anything I did, but rather it was a gift of Grace through the Holy Spirit moving me toward faith. (Titus 3:3-8)

I still don't have all the answers to all my questions, but I am mostly satisfied with the answers I have received. That doesn't mean that I stop asking the questions or searching for the answers, I do continue to seek them. At the same time, I also understand that there are some questions that I will never have the answers to, and that it is not possible for a finite being like myself to fully understand an infinite being like God.

What terrifies me is people that believe the ONLY source of morality is exactly that in the form of their religion. When some one makes claims like that, what they really just said is "I see no reason not to rip you apart with my bare hands right now except the external moral authority told me not too and/or/because I would be punished if I did".

I'll apologize in advance for continuing this way off topic thread. I don't typically respond to AC's, but I'll make an exception. I am a Christian, and I make no secret of it. If you (not you specifically, but any person in general) believe the teachings of the Christian church, that means you believe that there is only one God, and faith in Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation. If you believe in Christ, you understand that there is no way that you on your own could ever "good enough" to obtain eternal life in Heaven (Romans 3:20-24), so you don't behave out of fear of punishment. Jesus Christ has already paid for the punishment that everyone deserves for their sins. You behave because of what Christ has commanded you to do: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:30-31). I'll be the first to admit that I, like many Christians, fall short of this standard on many occasions.

And I'm really off topic but I think religious believers should get the help they need for their condition. That is, when you find out your full grown friend or coworker seriously believes in the Easter Bunny you wouldn't shoot him or take his kids, you'd try to help him. Remember, these people are a combination of a handful of nutty bars and opportunistic power hungry people up to no good but mainly victims of life long brainwashing and conditioning.

I don't need any help, and don't need have any condition. I don't want to wield any control over anyone else, and there aren't any people in the church who are trying to wield power over me. It's not like as if Christians, or people of any other religion have a monopoly over love of power, we've seen that with terrible effect in many 20th/21st century secular states.

I grew up in the church, but I wouldn't say that I really understood it, and wasn't really too committed to the little I did understand. Then I went to college and fell far away from my Christian faith. I was somewhere between atheist and agnostic during that time. I neither knew, nor cared if there was a God. I believed everything in the world could be answered naturalistically and science could answer all mankind's questions.

After I got married, my wife wanted to go to church, so I started going with her. I am a skeptic by nature, and a lot of questions I wanted answered. I decided that if there really could be a God, then that must be the most important thing there could be to know, so I started doing lots of research. I searched for answers to the questions I had, both from skeptics and Christian apologetic/theological sources. Somehow, I usually found the skeptics' answers ringing hollow. The apologetic answers were structured in a more logically consistent manner, and made more sense to me. After much study, thought and prayer, I eventually came back to faith in God. I also know that this was not due to anything I did, but rather it was a gift of Grace through the Holy Spirit moving me toward faith. (Titus 3:3-8)

I still don't have all the answers to all my questions, but I am mostly satisfied with the answers I have received. That doesn't mean that I stop asking the questions or searching for the answers, I do continue to seek them. At the same time, I also understand that there are some questions that I will never have the answers to, and that it is not possible for a finite being like myself to fully understand an infinite being like God.

What terrifies me is people that believe the ONLY source of morality is exactly that in the form of their religion. When some one makes claims like that, what they really just said is "I see no reason not to rip you apart with my bare hands right now except the external moral authority told me not too and/or/because I would be punished if I did".

I'll apologize in advance for continuing this way off topic thread. I don't typically respond to AC's, but I'll make an exception. I am a Christian, and I make no secret of it. If you (not you specifically, but any person in general) believe the teachings of the Christian church, that means you believe that there is only one God, and faith in Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation. If you believe in Christ, you understand that there is no way that you on your own could ever "good enough" to obtain eternal life in Heaven (Romans 3:20-24), so you don't behave out of fear of punishment. Jesus Christ has already paid for the punishment that everyone deserves for their sins. You behave because of what Christ has commanded you to do: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:30-31). I'll be the first to admit that I, like many Christians, fall short of this standard on many occasions.

And I'm really off topic but I think religious believers should get the help they need for their condition. That is, when you find out your full grown friend or coworker seriously believes in the Easter Bunny you wouldn't shoot him or take his kids, you'd try to help him. Remember, these people are a combination of a handful of nutty bars and opportunistic power hungry people up to no good but mainly victims of life long brainwashing and conditioning.

I don't need any help, and don't need have any condition. I don't want to wield any control over anyone else, and there aren't any people in the church who are trying to wield power over me. It's not like as if Christians, or people of any other religion have a monopoly over love of power, we've seen that with terrible effect in many 20th/21st century secular states.

I grew up in the church, but I wouldn't say that I really understood it, and wasn't really too committed to the little I did understand. Then I went to college and fell far away from my Christian faith. I was somewhere between atheist and agnostic during that time. I neither knew, nor cared if there was a God. I believed everything in the world could be answered naturalistically and science could answer all mankind's questions.

After I got married, my wife wanted to go to church, so I started going with her. I am a skeptic by nature, and a lot of questions I wanted answered. I decided that if there really could be a God, then that must be the most important thing there could be to know, so I started doing lots of research. I searched for answers to the questions I had, both from skeptics and Christian apologetic/theological sources. Somehow, I usually found the skeptics' answers ringing hollow. The apologetic answers were structured in a more logically consistent manner, and made more sense to me. After much study, thought and prayer, I eventually came back to faith in God. I also know that this was not due to anything I did, but rather it was a gift of Grace through the Holy Spirit moving me toward faith. (Titus 3:3-8)

I still don't have all the answers to all my questions, but I am mostly satisfied with the answers I have received. That doesn't mean that I stop asking the questions or searching for the answers, I do continue to seek them. At the same time, I also understand that there are some questions that I will never have the answers to, and that it is not possible for a finite being like myself to fully understand an infinite being like God.

The Bible already tells us that God is a monster. Numbers 16 makes that abundantly clear. The Bible can be literally true, or God can loving and just, but not both.

The fact is that the Bible is chock full of metaphor and parable, and understanding what is literal and what is not requires education.

God filled his book with logic traps to trick the people who want to believe in him?

Only a Christian could come up with logic like that to justify all the mistakes and impossibilities in the Bible.

It makes sense - "literal truth! Praise Jehovah!"

It doesn't make sense - "Oh, that's a parable/metaphor. You need to be specially educated to understand that part."

Jesus directly answers why he spoke in parables in Matthew 13:10-15

I'm not sure how you define major version - the two most used in my experience are the King James, the NIV, and the ESV; it might be a country thing - I'm from Australia. Out of those, the ESV has the past tense, the King James doesn't. In the absence of an expert in ancient Hebrew, I'd say that there's not enough information to comment definitively on the tenses, but that based on the translations (which were presumably done by experts) it's somewhat reasonable to consider that it may be a valid interpretation.

And the narrative works fine either way - the story is that man was alone; God brought all the existing animals before him, but none were suitable, so God custom-build him a suitable companion.

Chapter 1 - Male and Female are created simultaneously.

Chapter 2 - Adam and Eve are created in that order.

One of the two accounts must be false - they are mutually exclusive factual statements.

Genesis is a collection of myths with no more truth to them then the parables.

You seem to have a reading comprehension impairment. Chapter 1 is an executive summary showing the general chronological order of creation. Chapter 2 goes into detail about the creation of Adam and Eve. Versus 1-3 of Chapter 2 finish up with the 7th day when god rested. Chapter 2 verses 4-6 describe the environment on the surface of the earth just prior to the formation of Adam on the surface. As you can see, it does not recount the creation of light, the heavens, the dry land or the "sky" because it it did, then you could argue that it was a different account of "creation".

If you interpret that as two separate accounts of the creation of man then I am afraid that you have a learning disability. In a nutshell, Chapter 1 and versus 1-3 of Chapter two are the 7 days of creation. If you open up any bible translation, you will see that first section labeled "The Beginning" and Chapter 2 verse 4-31 are labeled "Adam and Eve". That latter section goes into detail on the creation of humanity.

Your comment is so derivative that I have to assume that you copy and pasted it from somewhere as I have heard the same bullshit statements from others who never bothered to crack open the bible and read it for themselves. Stop criticizing out of blind ignorance.

Here, this is Chapter 1: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Here is Chapter 2: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=NIV

See the heading at verse 4, Chapter 2?

Chapter 1 - Male and Female are created simultaneously.

Chapter 2 - Adam and Eve are created in that order.

One of the two accounts must be false - they are mutually exclusive factual statements.

Genesis is a collection of myths with no more truth to them then the parables.

You seem to have a reading comprehension impairment. Chapter 1 is an executive summary showing the general chronological order of creation. Chapter 2 goes into detail about the creation of Adam and Eve. Versus 1-3 of Chapter 2 finish up with the 7th day when god rested. Chapter 2 verses 4-6 describe the environment on the surface of the earth just prior to the formation of Adam on the surface. As you can see, it does not recount the creation of light, the heavens, the dry land or the "sky" because it it did, then you could argue that it was a different account of "creation".

If you interpret that as two separate accounts of the creation of man then I am afraid that you have a learning disability. In a nutshell, Chapter 1 and versus 1-3 of Chapter two are the 7 days of creation. If you open up any bible translation, you will see that first section labeled "The Beginning" and Chapter 2 verse 4-31 are labeled "Adam and Eve". That latter section goes into detail on the creation of humanity.

Your comment is so derivative that I have to assume that you copy and pasted it from somewhere as I have heard the same bullshit statements from others who never bothered to crack open the bible and read it for themselves. Stop criticizing out of blind ignorance.

Here, this is Chapter 1: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Here is Chapter 2: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=NIV

See the heading at verse 4, Chapter 2?

Pffft...you guys are wasting your time.

Those features were all deprecated in the last build. See the patch notes.

Very disappointed, eldavojohn, as I'm otherwise a big fan.
Okay, so the Catholic church receives billions! It also gives away ... billions!

You're obviously not a church-goer. At least, it's obvious you're not involved in the administration of a local parish.
Lemme fill you in:
- they largely operate on the backs of volunteers (Some individuals are uneducated, others are doctors / lawyers / engineers / etc)
- even those on the books put in more hours than they get paid
- we're always trying to raise money (what ?!) ... because we're always seeking to spend money (hint: to help people)
- every year, a hefty chunk of money is given to individuals outside the Church (gasp!) i.e. non-Christians (e.g. the general public, Indonesia, the Middle East). Occasionally a newbie will gripe as to why the money is being given to non-parishioners, and the rest of the group will remind them that we're all God's children.

I could go on with countless points.

On the chance that I'll be accused of putting-up a straw man ("dude, the previous post was about spending lavishly on the Church / Pope"):

- it's done out of respect for what the buildings / individuals represent. Not the individuals themselves ... but for their positions. (Kind of like a monarch wearing a million dollar crown. No longer monarch? You don't wear the crown.)
- it's a miniscule fraction of the overall money raised, and in fact this stuff is often donated
- even Christ Himself, who lived in abject poverty, asserted that in certain situations it was correct to spend money thusly

I don't know if my spiel has reduced anyone's hatred but, in my world anyway, the Church is a powerful force for good that redistributes wealth from those who have it to those who need it. That it's done discreetly may not be good for Brand Church, but it's how we do things:

Matthew 6:1-4

1 Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

Very disappointed, eldavojohn, as I'm otherwise a big fan.
Okay, so the Catholic church receives billions! It also gives away ... billions!

You're obviously not a church-goer. At least, it's obvious you're not involved in the administration of a local parish.
Lemme fill you in:
- they largely operate on the backs of volunteers (Some individuals are uneducated, others are doctors / lawyers / engineers / etc)
- even those on the books put in more hours than they get paid
- we're always trying to raise money (what ?!) ... because we're always seeking to spend money (hint: to help people)
- every year, a hefty chunk of money is given to individuals outside the Church (gasp!) i.e. non-Christians (e.g. the general public, Indonesia, the Middle East). Occasionally a newbie will gripe as to why the money is being given to non-parishioners, and the rest of the group will remind them that we're all God's children.

I could go on with countless points.

On the chance that I'll be accused of putting-up a straw man ("dude, the previous post was about spending lavishly on the Church / Pope"):

- it's done out of respect for what the buildings / individuals represent. Not the individuals themselves ... but for their positions. (Kind of like a monarch wearing a million dollar crown. No longer monarch? You don't wear the crown.)
- it's a miniscule fraction of the overall money raised, and in fact this stuff is often donated
- even Christ Himself, who lived in abject poverty, asserted that in certain situations it was correct to spend money thusly

I don't know if my spiel has reduced anyone's hatred but, in my world anyway, the Church is a powerful force for good that redistributes wealth from those who have it to those who need it. That it's done discreetly may not be good for Brand Church, but it's how we do things:

Matthew 6:1-4

1 Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

I half expect now, to learn that some surgeon in the 1700's was already using it experimentally.

No, in the 1700's, surgeons were using leeches as clamps to hold things together.

A bit off topic, but you might want to actually "read" Ezekiel CHAPTER 23 from verse 1. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=NIV

The chapter is talking about the unfaithfulness of god's chosen people. The women in the story represent Israel and Samaria.

This one comes to mind. The difference is, Lot saw that one coming, this time we were completely off guard.

And, you know, you only have to "endure" the bible if you actually read it. There's a lot of wisdom in that book.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to reap, and a time to sow;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

If that sounds familiar to folk music fans, Pete Seeger Plagairized almost all of it in 1959; The Byrds popularized it in 1965. There are reams of similar wit and wisdom in that book.

We sometimes forget that both of the non-scientific methods lead to great and often institutional stupidity. Reason without data is seen all the time when charlatans and the like argue that "women are the same as men because anything else is social heresy". And as for faith without data, well, get thee to Missouri.