Slashdot Mirror

Forgiveness ... it's taught by bible

No it isnt. The whole _point_ of christianity is blood sacrifice of Jesus to _atone_ for humankind's sins, because god refuses to simply forgive them.

Yes it is. Off the top of my head:
Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Ex 3515 Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets that were written on both sides; on the front and on the back they were written.

Version 2.0 pretty much sucked though...

God withdrew official support for tablets version 1.0 at around that time even though people continue using them to this day. It's totally going bum out a lot of Christians when they die and try to claim under warranty.

As a man who considers himself Christian

As a man who considers himself Christian, did you notice that God/Moses really messed up Stone Tablets 2.0 - check it out

Note: The only place The Bible says "...the Ten Commandments" is in Exodus 34:28 so I'm guessing those are the real commandments. The ones the Christians keep quoting were just a red herring to keep well meaning people out of Heaven.

Got your API right here, bub :-) There's more scattered around elsewhere.

here ya go: http://www.biblegateway.com/

no registration necessary!

do they email a barf bag?

here ya go: http://www.biblegateway.com/

no registration necessary!

Two English proverbs come to mind. More apt:

"It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

King Solomon was English?

Well, everyone knows the King James Bible was written in English, so yes, I suppose he was.

Two English proverbs come to mind. More apt:

"It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

King Solomon was English?

You are obviously making a gross generalization and know nothing about it really. That's like saying all Christians agree on what the Bible means which is obviously not true.

Try actually reading the Bible. It's not hard to find passages where the Christian God is calling for the extermination of people. Try Deuteronomy 20:16. Then shut your xenophobic mouth.

You are obviously making a gross generalization and know nothing about it really. That's like saying all Christians agree on what the Bible means which is obviously not true.

Try actually reading the Bible. It's not hard to find passages where the Christian God is calling for the extermination of people. Try Deuteronomy 20:16. Then shut your xenophobic mouth.

Luke 16:23 (link includes surrounding context) is hard to reconcile with Hades as an unconscious state of being.

Sorry, that interpretation of the NT, especially of Jesus's teachings, is pretty far off base. Ready Luke 16 some time. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16&version=NIV

Uh, you claimed: "Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis."

And so I said: "Where in the Bible did he say that?"

Just because something is written in the gospels doesn't mean that Jesus said it. The gospels were not written by Jesus. Two of the gospels weren't even written by the Apostles.

See Luke 1:1-4: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=NIV

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So Luke's genealogy might not have be from Jesus at all, but from Luke's investigation. Similar thing could have happened with Matthew's version.

You claim the genealogy was from Jesus, but you provide no evidence for it.

If you think the whole bible is to be taken literally then you should actually read Jesus' parables some time. And actually try to understand them. You should take effort to read the Bible better than the way you've read my posts.

As for Dawkins he's delusional - he claims stuff like "atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind". I'm sure you can find atheists with nonhealthy or nonindependent minds.

What passes for "Christian" in America today, probably isn't

You should probably read the Bible before you go paraphrasing it. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022:1-15&version=NKJV

There wasn't a shred of inconsistency in that story.

No, just God changing his mind:

Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

[Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac, and bullshits him with "trust me, we'll find a lamb to sacrifice somewhere around here"...]

And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

So, yeah, only the first 3 parts of El Fantasmo's paraphrase actually apply here:

God: Hey, Abraham! Go kill your son.
Abraham: OK.
God: No not really.

Not everybody calling himself a Christian is actually following Christ. (Matthew 7:21) Jesus never told anybody to spread the message of the Kingdom of God by the sword, to my knowledge. The first-century church didn't use force either.

Uh, excuse me? Matthews 10:34:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth. I have not come to bring peace but sword.

For the vast majority of human history there was no choice available. Even if you're a Young Earth Creationist, for just over half the lifetime of the earth there was no way to get past original sin to get to heaven.

Even though Noah, Abraham, Moses, and other followers of Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures didn't know exactly where they were going, they still had faith that their God would lead them in the right direction. See Hebrews 11.

Singular "Revelation", not plural "Revelations".

More useful would be to additionally quote what the third angel says in Rev 14:9-12.

That said, people will take it anyway. The convenience for shopping will be unmatched. People will rationalize that taking the mark demonstrates that they are too enlightened to believe this silly nonsense warning, thus demonstrating their knowing willful rebellion.

Every bigger religion has had bad apples, that's true. What's unique about Islam is that their leader Muhammed himself raped, enslaved, kidnapped, murdered and at least ordered people to stone in his name. This is pretty well documented in Hadith, an important source of Islamic knowledge for every interpretation of Islam as far as I know.

Unique? Have you read Numbers Chapter 31, in which Moses, the most important prophet in Judaism and the author of the Torah (at least according by tradition), is instructed by God to take vengeance on a rival tribe and:

...kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

(verses 17-18) That's some pretty viciously evil stuff. People tend to have a blindspot when it comes to religions with which they are more familiar. They think of friends and family members who practice that faith and disregard the fact that centuries ago, people had vastly different ideas about what was and wasn't morally acceptable.

This is not vengeful. "Vengeful" implies some amount of passion, probably even some actual empathy with your victim as you wish to feel yourself gain something as you feel them experience their loss.

"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."

(hopefully I don't need to give a reference for that)

More generally speaking, just searching for "vengenance" in the Bible gives plenty of hits.

didn't give a damn about the gentiles

So you don't know about the 70 weeks prophesy in Daniel. At the end of the seventy weeks (490 years) the Gospel would be taken to the Gentiles.

bucketfuls of Christian hatred

I'm not sure where you got your idea of Christianity, but this is what it teaches.

Perhaps you should actually read the Bible so you'll know what you're talking about. Perhaps you've listened to some TV swindler evangelist telling you to send him all your money. Or perhaps you've see some people covering up their short comings by being holier-that-thou. Lots of people profess to be a Christian without actually living up to the principles.

Direct quote from the man:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20

So...how many Christians do you know who follow all the Old Testament laws? Your new mission in life is to learn a few and point them out at every possible occasion. Ask them why they aren't out stoning children to death, etc., as stipulated in their laws.

Also ... next time you see a Christian with an iPhone or a car you need to remind them that they're supposed to sell all their worldly goods and give to the poor. God will provide, it's harder for a rich person to enter heaven than to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.

Don't feel bad about doing it, their immortal souls are on the line...

Sorry, but Genesis 2 simply doesn't say what order God created this or that in. It mentions creating Man, and putting him in the Garden of Eden, and then God introduces him to the animals - but the animals are pre-existing at this point (Genesis 2:19: "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky." - emphasis mine.)

Likewise, Genesis 1's account of the creation of Man is the short form ("27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.") Nothing there says or implies that He created male and female at the same time, and the next chapter clarifies that He didn't.

Yes, of course there are inconsistencies in the Bible, but the ones you're currently pointing to aren't.

2 Tim 4:3 talks about you and your link.

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity. Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!

For the specific example of the biology teacher - I don't care whether the biology teacher believes in evolution or not. I want a teacher who can present the evidence and the theory in a clear and interesting way, without getting preachy for either side of the debate.

So you believe that for someone to properly study Islam, they must believe in Islam? For someone to be a student of Greek gods and goddesses, the person must believe in those gods and goddesses?

I think my eighth grade teacher handled the question perfectly. When he introduced the topic he said we didn't have to agree with the theory but that to be educated people in the modern world we had to understand it. If I remember correctly, some (perhaps most) of the test questions started with the phrase, "According to the theory of evolution...".

Assuming that the evidence and the logic speak for themselves, the students will be able to decide for themselves so long as they have the evidence and the theory presented to them, so there is no need to get upset that the teacher isn't trying to force the students to believe in the theory - they can figure it out.

Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!

Well, sure. If you think of the front leg pair as arms, instead. I could totally see that. You have people - 2 legs, 2 arms. Animals - 4 legs. It's less a stretch to think 4 legs with 2 arms than 6 legs. Just a different way to think about it.

I mean, classification of such things is arbitrary.

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity. Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!

On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:12-13&version=NIV

Many Christians don't appear to be even trying to follow Jesus. They might be following some preacher/pastor guy shouting sermons of hate (or greed), but that's very different from following Jesus.

For context: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." [Heb 11:1] NASB. Conviction may also be translated as evidence (among other words, you'd need a concordance to do a best case word study). NASB tends to be relatively literal.

The chapter then proceeds to outline several "heroes of the faith" who did their thing with the expectation that God would make good on His promises as the heroes saw them, and concludes by pointing out that God did one better and met the promises as He saw them - with an implementation in excess of what man would have been able to understand.

It may be worth noting, for this discussion, that faith is forward looking the while dwelling on creation mechanisms are not. I've found that the underlying fear among literal 6-day Creationists tend to be related to the fundamental validity of scripture (Bible); there are many of the literal 6-day crowd among ID types. I personally find their fears and their interpretation of "long view" consequences to be lacking robustness; and among the better educated, faith. (Fully exploring this topic and my thoughts on it are well outside the scope of this post).

Nevertheless, we do find ourselves with an existence which is rather improbable. There are plenty of cosmological papers which bring this topic up, including some which point out our current universe (as it is understood) needed some outside energy expenditures to wind up the way it seems to be. Ultimately the current state of scientific understanding regarding our origins leaves us in the realm of speculation. David Brin does some interesting thought experiments in his short stories (particularly those in "Otherness") about how universes may evolve to be self propagating with respect to initial conditions and physical laws. I fall on the other side and believe that we exist due to a creator who helped spin up this universe in its current state. Who knows, maybe Einstein would have felt OK about God using loaded dice?

Furthermore, (both for full disclosure as well as establishing a credibility baseline for this particular argument), I do fall into the category of someone who keeps to a fairly literal translation of the Bible where appropriate (poetry is poetry, parables are parables, literal-truth is literal-truth, and complicated-realities-explained-in-a-way-which-convey-their-truthful-essence-without-leading-people-into-confusing-irrelevant-technical-details-beyond-even-modern-science are complicated-realities-explained-in-a-way-which-convey-their-truthful-essence-without-leading-people-into-confusing-irrelevant-technical-details-beyond-even-modern-science).

Science is a tool with which we explore physical realities, Christianity (religion) is a tool in which we explore metaphysical reality - reason and faith are the tools with which we make unified and consistent laws. There is some overlap (such as archeology) but for the most part, the tools reside in separate jurisdictions.

Wasn't it an Apple that messed everything up in the first place? ;)

Arbitration (not arbitrage) occurs in various contexts all the time. The same people who freak out about Muslims doing this among themselves, of course, have no qualms about this common practice in business, for example. Or maybe they are just mad because they assume the Muslims stole the idea from 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 in the New Testament (yes, secular courts are clearly unbiblical).

No.. but it does somewhat mention the "japanese method"

http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+36:12&version=KJV

Yummy!

It really gets interesting when you think that there is NO indication for how LONG Adam and Eve spent in the garden. We know Adam was around 1000 years old when he finally died, but we don't know how much of that was spent during his "immortal" years. It may very well be that he and Eve only lived for a few years after they ate the fruit, although we know it was long enough to raise Cain and Abel to adulthood..

"After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."

So if the lord limited humans to 120, why did Methuselah get 8 times that much time?

Methuselah lived in Genesis 5, before the decree in Genesis 6...

This is the only place this word has ever been used that we know of. How the hell do you know what it means?

Here is the passage in another translation:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

The word in greek you're referring to is "theopneustos" Strong's concordance number 2315. This is the only place it appears in the Bible, and the only place we know of where it has ever even been written. It seems to be a term coined by Paul. The basis of the translation "God-Breathed" comes from the greek words "Theós" meaning God, and "pnéo" meaning to breathe.

Most scholars think it should be taken to mean that all scriptures are inspired by God. But there are some who believe that it means to refer only to those scriptures that were inspired by God (as in the translation I showed you above).

In any case there is a lot of room here for the reader to interpret the text. But, the idea that Paul could have been referring to the Bible itself (and the entire Bible at that) is silly because parts of it hadn't even been written, and it hadn't been complied into a single book. If Paul himself had complied the Bible, maybe you'd have something (something resembling Mormonism, anyway) but he didn't, so your interpretation is reaching well beyond what Paul actually could have meant by it.

What's the take away from all this? You need to stop holding up the Bible as an idol. I actually agree with Paul that all scripture is useful, but that includes the parts where it warns against idolatry.

Sure, a lot of the Bible is a historical record of the Jewish and Christian people living in the Middle East for a period of a few thousand years, and not every law in Leviticus applies to us today.

Which laws still apply?

If my daughter is raped, do I still sell her to her rapist?

If my kid is rebellious, do I still get to kill him?

If I wife doesn't bleed like a virgin on our wedding night, do I still get to kill her?

If my kid turns out gay, and I catch him with his boyfriend, am I still obligated to kill both of them?

Shall I keep going? This is your bible, not mine. This is codified barbarism. It is institutionalized hatred and murder. This is the foundation stone that the rest of your religion is built directly upon. The god in those books is a bloodthirsty monster. The New Testament builds on that, adding infinite punishments for those who don't believe. It's all infantile prattling, and I have a hard time taking anyone who finds deep meaning in it seriously. Grow up, and quit your whining. If you are right, you will be even more exalted in your childish "heaven" due to our criticism while we burn forever, so what are you whining about anyway?

Sure, a lot of the Bible is a historical record of the Jewish and Christian people living in the Middle East for a period of a few thousand years, and not every law in Leviticus applies to us today.

Which laws still apply?

If my daughter is raped, do I still sell her to her rapist?

If my kid is rebellious, do I still get to kill him?

If I wife doesn't bleed like a virgin on our wedding night, do I still get to kill her?

If my kid turns out gay, and I catch him with his boyfriend, am I still obligated to kill both of them?

Shall I keep going? This is your bible, not mine. This is codified barbarism. It is institutionalized hatred and murder. This is the foundation stone that the rest of your religion is built directly upon. The god in those books is a bloodthirsty monster. The New Testament builds on that, adding infinite punishments for those who don't believe. It's all infantile prattling, and I have a hard time taking anyone who finds deep meaning in it seriously. Grow up, and quit your whining. If you are right, you will be even more exalted in your childish "heaven" due to our criticism while we burn forever, so what are you whining about anyway?

Sure, a lot of the Bible is a historical record of the Jewish and Christian people living in the Middle East for a period of a few thousand years, and not every law in Leviticus applies to us today.

Which laws still apply?

If my daughter is raped, do I still sell her to her rapist?

If my kid is rebellious, do I still get to kill him?

If I wife doesn't bleed like a virgin on our wedding night, do I still get to kill her?

If my kid turns out gay, and I catch him with his boyfriend, am I still obligated to kill both of them?

Shall I keep going? This is your bible, not mine. This is codified barbarism. It is institutionalized hatred and murder. This is the foundation stone that the rest of your religion is built directly upon. The god in those books is a bloodthirsty monster. The New Testament builds on that, adding infinite punishments for those who don't believe. It's all infantile prattling, and I have a hard time taking anyone who finds deep meaning in it seriously. Grow up, and quit your whining. If you are right, you will be even more exalted in your childish "heaven" due to our criticism while we burn forever, so what are you whining about anyway?

Sure, a lot of the Bible is a historical record of the Jewish and Christian people living in the Middle East for a period of a few thousand years, and not every law in Leviticus applies to us today.

Which laws still apply?

If my daughter is raped, do I still sell her to her rapist?

If my kid is rebellious, do I still get to kill him?

If I wife doesn't bleed like a virgin on our wedding night, do I still get to kill her?

If my kid turns out gay, and I catch him with his boyfriend, am I still obligated to kill both of them?

Shall I keep going? This is your bible, not mine. This is codified barbarism. It is institutionalized hatred and murder. This is the foundation stone that the rest of your religion is built directly upon. The god in those books is a bloodthirsty monster. The New Testament builds on that, adding infinite punishments for those who don't believe. It's all infantile prattling, and I have a hard time taking anyone who finds deep meaning in it seriously. Grow up, and quit your whining. If you are right, you will be even more exalted in your childish "heaven" due to our criticism while we burn forever, so what are you whining about anyway?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-20&version=NIV [Bible Gateway]

I know, right? Every time I see a stubborn and rebellious child in public, I inform the parent that it is their religious duty as Christians to bring him to the elders so that he or she may be stoned to death, but I always get such odd looks...

How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore such important verses?

Oh look, it's another internet atheist who shits on religion without understanding it.
Deuteronomy is from the Old Testament.
Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Christians DO get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity. There are core beliefs that all Christians hold (such as the Genesis story, the flood story), and core tenets they must follow (such as the ten commandments).

You absolutely can be a Christian and ignore all of the kill this, don't eat this, don't fuck that, etc. from the Bible. Christ's teachings were extremely hippie-like, and the differences between the sects about the belief/following/interpretation of Christ's teachings are miniscule to the differences concerning the Old Testament, or parts of the New Testament that aren't about Jesus.

And even if this wasn't the case, what would your point be? That Christians should stone their children to death when they misbehave?
If you want to shit on a religion or religious people, you might want to reflect on the fact that you are the one telling them to stone children, while they consider that to be adbsurd. Christianity is not what you think it is, but iternet atheists like you are every bit the ignorant assholes everyone thinks them to be.

I am not religious, but morons like you make it so I can't say I'm an atheist. I can't say I'm agnostic because then EVERYONE tries to convert you.

I know, right? Every time I see a stubborn and rebellious child in public, I inform the parent that it is their religious duty as Christians to bring him to the elders so that he or she may be stoned to death, but I always get such odd looks...

How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore such important verses?

It's "morality" as a consequence of "technolgy", the newly acquired opportunity to kill opponents without too much "political" risk.

*ahem*...
http://suntzusaid.com/book/13/20
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1%3A9-14&version=NIV

I sincerely believe these techniques were studied and employed for a loooooooooong time prior to any sophisticated moral debate taking place, so it's probably safe to assume it has been covered a few times in the last couple thousand years.

There was a shortage when he was copying: nobody was selling

Nope:

35 And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, This is a desert place, and now the time is far passed:

36 Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.

37 He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?

38* And he saith unto them, Fornicate it for a shekel, I'll seed, and gave .torrent to his disciples

* Not really, lol

Lame. I prefer the Jewish message: be nice to people, because the person you just tried to anally rape might turn out to be God, and hail down fiery brimstone on your entire region.

( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1-28&version=KJV )

It's pretty easy to say "death to..." and when called out on it to say "well we really meant..." which is what Ahmadinejad the leaders before him, and the Ayatollah's have done too. I'm sure you already know what this is called, and I don't have to spell it out for you.

What is worse than idiot puppets like Ahmadinejad is the religious hypocrisy that empowers them. Just look at the war-mongering drivel such religions are based on: Qur’an 47:4?, Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Qur’an 9:5, Numbers 31:17-18.

It's pretty easy to say "death to..." and when called out on it to say "well we really meant..." which is what Ahmadinejad the leaders before him, and the Ayatollah's have done too. I'm sure you already know what this is called, and I don't have to spell it out for you.

What is worse than idiot puppets like Ahmadinejad is the religious hypocrisy that empowers them. Just look at the war-mongering drivel such religions are based on: Qur’an 47:4?, Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Qur’an 9:5, Numbers 31:17-18.

Ill answer your third point because I have heard it so often.

The Bible and basically every conservative denomination will affirm that men are basically bad-- even those who claim to follow christ. Further, they understand that not all who call upon the name of Christ are actually his followers (in fact its in the New Testament-- "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.')

Why then would it be hard to understand how people claiming the name of Christ can commit terrible deeds? For goodness sake, the Jews' greatest hero from the Old Testament-- David-- was not only an adulturer, but a murderer: he had Bathsheeba's husband murdered by sending him to the worst part of a battle and then withdrawing all support.

As for female genital mutilation and pedophile priests, you may want to look elsewhere than protestantism.

As for Intelligent design, are you saying that you dont find Christianity credible because people push to have it taught? What strange kind of logic is this?

Wow, now I'm prepared for revelation. I'm read the bible multiple times and found no mention of the trinity anywhere, ever. Not even the slightest allusion to it.

It doesnt use that word. The word trinity, as with other words and phrases such as easter, communion (and as the catholic church might assert, transubstantiation) dont actually appear in the bible; they are shorthand for longer concepts that we DO see clearly.

If you look through the new testament, you see very clearly that there are references to roles of a "father", of a "son" in a relationship to the "father", and a "spirit" in a relationship with the other two. All three are considered to be divine, and to be God, and monotheism is affirmed many many times (even by Jesus himself, who calls himself both "the son" whose role is to do the will of "the father", and also identifies himself as one in being with "the father"-- Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father').

The clearest explaination I can give of what it all means is simply that there is a single divine eternal being called God (whose name is Yahweh, by some translations) who has three "persons", or roles, in himself.

As for several versions, there are many translations, if thats what you mean, each with their own minor flaws; no translation of Greek / Hebrew to english will ever be 100% perfect, though the most common ones are 99% in agreement.

So exposing the parallels between actions isn't a valid premise for logic and reason?

No more than Godwinning a conversation does. Its like saying "Hitler brushed his teeth, so if you brush your teeth, you must want to murder Jews." That is what is known as a fallacy (several of them in fact). Parallels are useful in analogies, but as arguments in and of themselves, they are bad arguments. What Kim Jong Il and his father do / did are of no relevance whatsoever to the existence of a deity or his power, station, or knowledge.

. I suspect you'd more the like the debate between him and Dinesh D'Souza, a full blown apologist and a bit more adept at the logical gymnastics which come with it.

Let me get this straight. Youre defending Hitchens' use of fallacy, and then accusing me of logical gymnastics? Just to be clear, you can agree with Hitchens' premise without having to defend his poor argumentation.