Slashdot Mirror

Ummm...Paul was a Roman citizen and is frequently credited with writing most of the New Testament. Got any other prejudices you'd like to have disproved?

What about the earth being a sphere (Isa 40:22) and hanging on nothing (Job 26:7)...?

What about the earth being a sphere (Isa 40:22) and hanging on nothing (Job 26:7)...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists do not want to take away freedom of religion. (I don't know of any that do...)

Lenin, Marx, Mao did. The reasonable atheists don't.

As for removing God from government, in my opinion all the current governments (I'm aware of) can very well take full responsibility for what they do and not claim it as an "act of God" ;).

What if someone decided to put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on money? Would you complain?

I don't see a big difference between that and the other symbols people put on money.

In my opinion, from a Christian perspective money shouldn't be treasured in the first place: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:19-24&version=NIV

What should be treasured is stuff that lasts forever, and from a Christian POV at least some people will last forever, therefore one should "store up" friends: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016&version=NIV

I'm definitely not doing a good job of it (as you can see ;) ). Hopefully I'll improve :).

Atheists do not want to take away freedom of religion. (I don't know of any that do...)

Lenin, Marx, Mao did. The reasonable atheists don't.

As for removing God from government, in my opinion all the current governments (I'm aware of) can very well take full responsibility for what they do and not claim it as an "act of God" ;).

What if someone decided to put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on money? Would you complain?

I don't see a big difference between that and the other symbols people put on money.

In my opinion, from a Christian perspective money shouldn't be treasured in the first place: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:19-24&version=NIV

What should be treasured is stuff that lasts forever, and from a Christian POV at least some people will last forever, therefore one should "store up" friends: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016&version=NIV

I'm definitely not doing a good job of it (as you can see ;) ). Hopefully I'll improve :).

I can't imagine how any sane individual with even a trivial background in zoology could believe the literal story of Noah's Ark - how viable breeding populations of millions of species many of which depend on rare and unique habitats for survival were collected from all over the world by Noah and his family, even the most remote places... They somehow kept them alive for 40 days on a boat with bronze age technology.

I wonder who got the sh*t job of scouring the planet for the 15000 species of butterfly or the 8800 species of ant they eventually took on board Noah's Ark

This is usually the first argument that is brought up when Noah's Ark is mentioned. However, it is commonly accepted that natural selection is something that does happen, and also artificial selection due to human intervention. The species that are alive today share a common ancestor within their species. 15000 species of butterfly or 8800 species of ant aren't required. Only a couple of ants/butterflies, etc, needed to be brought onto the ark to propagate throughout the world. Natural selection can also answer the question of the unique habitats. Some of these changes are due to availability of resources (food). Pre-Flood Earth is before the ice age, a paradise of sorts. This changes after the flood, and the major climate shift that takes place due to the catastrophe. A globe shattering event that as described in Genesis 7:11b "...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth..." Massive earthquakes, torrents of rain, geysers relieving pressure built up underground, possibly asteroids hitting Earth, all causing the flood and climate shift that follows. This takes much longer than 40 days, as that is just the time the rain lasted. Genesis 7:11a "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month..." Genesis 8:13-14"By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry." Regardless of the calendar we are using to calculate this, this is almost a year on the Ark, giving time for plants to start growing again. Now this is for a largely reduced population of animals and people, so the amount growing is more than will be eaten. As far as enough food for the animals while on the Ark, a semi-hibernation state has been suggested by many, thus accounting for less food consumed over this year, as well as possible on-board gardens after the initial 40 days and nights of rain.

They were then released and hopped, crawled and wiggled their way back to their homelands leaving no descendent's on the way, and somehow their environment wasn't destroyed by being submerged all that time. For example, the kangaroos all hopped back to Australia leaving no trace en route, and somehow found eucalyptus trees to chew on, (what did they eat during the return journey?) even though the whole continent had been underwater, and their food source should have been wiped out.

Ararat, the mountain that is mentioned as the resting place of the Ark, is most likely located in Turkey, part of the fertile crescent, which is commonly accepted as the "cradle of civilization". A fertile area that is home to domesticated animals, as well as a large number of domesticated plants. These dates go back to approximately 9500 B.C. which roughly matches the biblical date of the flood. Another commonly accepted theory that is often "forgotten about" when discussing this subject, is that of continental drift and pl

I can't imagine how any sane individual with even a trivial background in zoology could believe the literal story of Noah's Ark - how viable breeding populations of millions of species many of which depend on rare and unique habitats for survival were collected from all over the world by Noah and his family, even the most remote places... They somehow kept them alive for 40 days on a boat with bronze age technology.

I wonder who got the sh*t job of scouring the planet for the 15000 species of butterfly or the 8800 species of ant they eventually took on board Noah's Ark

This is usually the first argument that is brought up when Noah's Ark is mentioned. However, it is commonly accepted that natural selection is something that does happen, and also artificial selection due to human intervention. The species that are alive today share a common ancestor within their species. 15000 species of butterfly or 8800 species of ant aren't required. Only a couple of ants/butterflies, etc, needed to be brought onto the ark to propagate throughout the world. Natural selection can also answer the question of the unique habitats. Some of these changes are due to availability of resources (food). Pre-Flood Earth is before the ice age, a paradise of sorts. This changes after the flood, and the major climate shift that takes place due to the catastrophe. A globe shattering event that as described in Genesis 7:11b "...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth..." Massive earthquakes, torrents of rain, geysers relieving pressure built up underground, possibly asteroids hitting Earth, all causing the flood and climate shift that follows. This takes much longer than 40 days, as that is just the time the rain lasted. Genesis 7:11a "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month..." Genesis 8:13-14"By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry." Regardless of the calendar we are using to calculate this, this is almost a year on the Ark, giving time for plants to start growing again. Now this is for a largely reduced population of animals and people, so the amount growing is more than will be eaten. As far as enough food for the animals while on the Ark, a semi-hibernation state has been suggested by many, thus accounting for less food consumed over this year, as well as possible on-board gardens after the initial 40 days and nights of rain.

They were then released and hopped, crawled and wiggled their way back to their homelands leaving no descendent's on the way, and somehow their environment wasn't destroyed by being submerged all that time. For example, the kangaroos all hopped back to Australia leaving no trace en route, and somehow found eucalyptus trees to chew on, (what did they eat during the return journey?) even though the whole continent had been underwater, and their food source should have been wiped out.

Ararat, the mountain that is mentioned as the resting place of the Ark, is most likely located in Turkey, part of the fertile crescent, which is commonly accepted as the "cradle of civilization". A fertile area that is home to domesticated animals, as well as a large number of domesticated plants. These dates go back to approximately 9500 B.C. which roughly matches the biblical date of the flood. Another commonly accepted theory that is often "forgotten about" when discussing this subject, is that of continental drift and pl

I'm not a fan of that website's design either, but for the record the Jewish / Christian use of the rainbow as a symbol of God's mercy and promise far predates the modern homosexual movement. See Genesis 9:12-16 for details - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:12-16&version=NIV

But a clearer understanding is that you make disciples of people, not nations. The idea is go into these nations, teach, and make disciples of them. But this is done by changing hearts and minds, not forcing people to become Christians and therefore isn't extreme at all.

I'm afraid not. Christians have historically forced people to convert, often at the point of a sword. It's common to attempt conversions of people who are in emotional or physical distress. It's common to indoctrinate children with it before they have the mental faculties to even understand the concepts. It's accompanied with threats of eternal damnation and promises of absurd delights. This is the normal mode of operations for all of the Abrahamic religions, from Christians to Muslims to Mormons to Jehovas Witnesses to *insert your favorite group here*.

How were they to make them disciples? By teaching. Not by war, terrorist threats, and force.

Bullcrap. The Paul you so lovingly quoted below also threatened eternal damnation upon everyone who didn't follow his beliefs:
He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. - 2 Thess:8-10
Or how about the whole freaking chapters of Romans 1 and 2? Threatening me with eternal, infinite suffering is only more tolerable than threatening to blow me up because I don't believe in crackpot theories of Hell, while I can see for myself the reality of a car bomb.

Christianity understands that one has the right to reject the Gospel as well. "Almost though persuadest me to be a Christian" as recorded in Acts 26:28. Did Paul issue a jihad to force Agrippa to become one? Did he mount a terrorist attack to capture Agrippa and force him to accept discipleship or die? No.

Of course not. He didn't have the political power to do so. Once Christians did, however, that tolerance disappeared. It only reappeared when they were neutered by outside forces and forced to play nice. Even now, it only takes the slightest provocation for Christians to start killing each other and anyone else who they perceive as a threat.

So there is no extreme behavior. That others since the first century church have done so in the name of Christ goes back to a previous point, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21.

You should look up a term in wiki. It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Since you apparently missed my earlier reply, chapter and verse, with a handy link so you don't even have to crack your home bible. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Mat. 28:19-20

As for Christian ethics, sure, they are cool, if you divorce them from the deranged concepts of virgin birth, heaven and hell, demon-driven disease, weird hatred of fig trees, misogynistic tendencies, the desire to "bring a sword" to the world and all of the other strange and irrational claims that those ethics are draped in.

I would agree with much of what you say but that. Christians aren't commanded to eliminate other faiths. Rather, to convert the unsaved. It's about changing minds and hearts. The word "eliminate" brings to mind more extreme behavior. That was probably not your intent, though.

Really?

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Mat. 28:19-20

Seems pretty clear cut and extreme to me. There is no room in that command for leaving people to their previous beliefs. Just like Islam.

Apart from the 1611 edition, the majority of translations of the Bible into English are copyrighted. Furthermore, the book of Revelation has what appears to be a NoDerivs license on it: (Rev 22:18-19).

Pascal's wagre is, from a Christian POV ludicrous. Faith requires belief, but it is more than that. The point of the theistic religions is to develop a relationship with God. Mere belief is insufficient, mere disbelief is not damning.

None of the mainstream churches teaches that non-believers will be damned (very few even of the fundies do), what matters is this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work.

You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.

I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.

I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.

As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).

And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.

I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work.

You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.

I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.

I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.

As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).

And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.

I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work.

You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.

I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.

I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.

As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).

And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.

I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work.

You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.

I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.

I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.

As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).

And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.

I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work.

You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.

I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.

I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.

As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).

And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.

Huh? Where does it say that's one of the Ten Commandments?

The only place in the Bible where it says "Ten Commandments" is Exodus 34:28

here

Remind me again which verse tells me not to murder...I just read the list and it's not there.

Read the list again ... it's just the antonyms of the parent post.

PS: You're right about the Ten commandments though.

Just because a lot of people like to read the Bible in 400 year old English, doesn't mean that's the only version. Try the New Living Translation, the Message or the New International Version.

Modern Bible

About 14 verses back.

*point*

Here's the relevant chapter.

Can you point us to the line where it says "Thou shalt not steal"....?

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

Actually, the GP has it right. The human dung was used as a fuel, not as an ingredient. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+4%3A9-17&version=NIV)

Atheists trying to do theology is a lot more entertaining than lolcats, anyhow.

Just read the real bible and you'll be confusing fundies left and right.

And you can go for even nastier than confusing if you want. For example, find someone who's a fan of that Ezekiel 4:9 bread, and tell them that the whole recipe given by God there continues all the way to Ezekiel 4:13: "and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man". Yep, God's recipe there actually calls for human shit as an ingredient for that bread. (Though Ezekiel himself, for being so faithful and kosher all his life, gets Gods dispensation in 4:15 to eat his with cow shit instead.)

Especially if you spring that on them after they ate some, honestly, no amount of lolcat bible can even start to compare :p

The poop wasn't an ingredient, it was the fuel used to cook the bread: "And you shall eat it as barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight.”

Doesn't make it a whole lot more pleasant, but let's at least be factually correct.

18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal [c] goes down into the earth?" 22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3&version=NIV

I'm guessing you know this, but for anyone else's information, the above was actually said by Jesus.

when was the last time you wrote code that lasted more than two centuries with less than 30 patches?

Six thousand years ago.

I still think making Woman a decedent of the Rib Class was something of a hack.

Looks like Leviticus 19:19.

That's good enough to warrant a T-shirt.

Where do you get the idea there wasn't marriage in the bible?

There wasn't _legal_ marriage in the bible like we have today (unless you count the tax registration required by the romans), but it was most certainly there. The semitic cultures all had their various dowry and inheritance laws. Actual wedding ceremonies aren't laid down in the bible, but I've always assumed that's because it's unnecessary; everyone knew marriage rituals, since weddings were a major social event.

A few specific cases:

Jacob, Leah, and Rachel

Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines

The wedding at Cana

Where do you get the idea there wasn't marriage in the bible?

There wasn't _legal_ marriage in the bible like we have today (unless you count the tax registration required by the romans), but it was most certainly there. The semitic cultures all had their various dowry and inheritance laws. Actual wedding ceremonies aren't laid down in the bible, but I've always assumed that's because it's unnecessary; everyone knew marriage rituals, since weddings were a major social event.

A few specific cases:

Jacob, Leah, and Rachel

Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines

The wedding at Cana

Where do you get the idea there wasn't marriage in the bible?

There wasn't _legal_ marriage in the bible like we have today (unless you count the tax registration required by the romans), but it was most certainly there. The semitic cultures all had their various dowry and inheritance laws. Actual wedding ceremonies aren't laid down in the bible, but I've always assumed that's because it's unnecessary; everyone knew marriage rituals, since weddings were a major social event.

A few specific cases:

Jacob, Leah, and Rachel

Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines

The wedding at Cana

Are you purporting that Christ advocated a strict adherence to the old law? Because Paul certainly did.

You mean this Paul? Acts 21:20-21:

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs."

You don't know what you're talking about.

In this view, I recommend focusing on that which Christ did and said, and reading as little of what Saul wrote as is humanly possible.

You've demonstrated to anyone who is actually familiar with scripture you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Jesus: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Paul: 8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Sounds pretty consistent to me...

In this view, I recommend focusing on that which Christ did and said, and reading as little of what Saul wrote as is humanly possible.

You've demonstrated to anyone who is actually familiar with scripture you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Jesus: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Paul: 8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Sounds pretty consistent to me...

In the Bible, "antichrists" refer to those who do not believe that Jesus is "The Christ". (See 1 John 2:22 for one example.)

The "Beast", on the other hand, is a completely different thing. (And is a metaphor for the Roman Empire, which makes sense given when the book was written, and where.)

Not that there's anything wrong with The Omen. It was an awesome movie. And, I guess, as a basis of eschatology it makes as much sense as anything else. It's certainly more modern, which is to its credit.

Making a silk purse out of a sow's ear

If you want a real religious analogy, how about the Book of Job: Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and effectively gave him a science quiz that any high-school student could pass today, (Verse 35: "Actually, God, not only do I undertand Earth's hydrological cycle, but I happen to have a Tesla coil right here on my desk!") but would have been pretty tough 4000 years ago.

The point being that it wouldn't be hard for a physicist to update that story using today's modern mysteries. "Yo, Anonymous Coward, where do you get off telling Me how to run My universe? I mean, dude, where the hell were you when I made physics out of which the Higgs Boson came into existence (or didn't, since this AC, speaking on God's behalf, doesn't know the answer yet :) You hairless apes have at least figured out that you are hairless apes, but you still haven't even figured out gravity yet!"

1. he didn't pass a collection plate

How do you know? After all, he was human at the time, and needed food to eat and clothes on his back.

Besides, tithing is crucial to the church community, and it is found several times in scripture. See Gen 28:20-22 and Deuteronomy 14:22-29 for example. (for reference, Levite == priest.)

In a good church, that offering goes on to fund the facilities required to maintain the church, any missionaries adopted by the church, and the community surrounding the church. Certainly, it also pays the salaries of the pastor and church workers, but unlike Congress, we the members of the church get to vote on whether the church workers get raises. ;-)

2. he wasn't passing the collected money up to a king in a city-state with a trillion dollar endowment

...

4. he was Jesus, not a pedophile hypocrite in a uniform

Oh, this must be about Catholicism. But even in Catholicism, not all churches are bad.

3. he wasn't promoting a political viewpoint while he had everyone's attention

This word "political". I do not think it means what you think it means. The Law of God is policy. Christianity, in many ways, is itself a political viewpoint.

5. it was about his ideas, not his haircut, the size of his stadium, the height of his stained-glass windows, or how well he fit the audience's idea of a "good christian"

I've never been to a church that preaches about these things... At least not without a tongue planted firmly in cheek. I imagine if I had ever visited one such congregation, I wouldn't stay very long.

6. he didn't have to talk around the absurd surrealities in the bible

This seems to be an attack on scripture itself, rather than the concept of a church, so this isn't all that relevant to my question.

1. he didn't pass a collection plate

How do you know? After all, he was human at the time, and needed food to eat and clothes on his back.

Besides, tithing is crucial to the church community, and it is found several times in scripture. See Gen 28:20-22 and Deuteronomy 14:22-29 for example. (for reference, Levite == priest.)

In a good church, that offering goes on to fund the facilities required to maintain the church, any missionaries adopted by the church, and the community surrounding the church. Certainly, it also pays the salaries of the pastor and church workers, but unlike Congress, we the members of the church get to vote on whether the church workers get raises. ;-)

2. he wasn't passing the collected money up to a king in a city-state with a trillion dollar endowment

...

4. he was Jesus, not a pedophile hypocrite in a uniform

Oh, this must be about Catholicism. But even in Catholicism, not all churches are bad.

3. he wasn't promoting a political viewpoint while he had everyone's attention

This word "political". I do not think it means what you think it means. The Law of God is policy. Christianity, in many ways, is itself a political viewpoint.

5. it was about his ideas, not his haircut, the size of his stadium, the height of his stained-glass windows, or how well he fit the audience's idea of a "good christian"

I've never been to a church that preaches about these things... At least not without a tongue planted firmly in cheek. I imagine if I had ever visited one such congregation, I wouldn't stay very long.

6. he didn't have to talk around the absurd surrealities in the bible

This seems to be an attack on scripture itself, rather than the concept of a church, so this isn't all that relevant to my question.

Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen. So they said, "Lord, should we use our swords against them?" 50 One of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "Stop this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him. Luke 22:49-51 Granted, he healed a man who his disciple had just amputated, but it's still the healing of an amputation. :)

Since nobody ever proved religion to be right, or the existence of any kind of god or any of that stupid stuff, then no, science doesn't have to prove them wrong

Is it that "nobody ever proved" it, or that many people reject the proofs on offer, or that people don't even look for the proofs?

[Prelude: Paralytic man brought to Jesus; Jesus forgives his sins; the nearby officials scoff] Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!" Mark 2

Now, Jesus uses the miracles to prove who he is, and implicitly proves that God exists. The proof to the witnesses is compelling.

Now, the problem we have today is that we were born in the wrong century to witness the proof, and subsequently also have to prove the veracity of the account. There is much to be said here, but to make a few brief arguments in support:

• Both Jesus' allies and detractors were present. The latter had good political reasons for denying the miracles, but they didn't, which suggests maybe they couldn't.
• Many of the writers of the New Testament were so convicted by the things they witnessed, they were willing to be executed on account of their testimonies.
• There is good archaeological reason to believe that the texts were recorded relatively close to the events and have been transmitted accurately, with respect to all other historical documents.
• To say that the miracles couldn't have happened because they weren't physically possible is to miss the point completely. The miracles only have value to authenticate Jesus and God precisely because they are physically impossible for the rest of us.

To those who say that no proofs have been presented, I ask: have you investigated to see what proofs are on offer? If not, you may find it a surprisingly rewarding pursuit. I recommend the book The Case for Christ as a good starting point (its by a journalist who set out as an atheist to disprove Christianity, but ended up a Christian).

But to hold a contrary position without even examining the proof on offer is to exhibit the behavior that is so often being condemned.

You take your religion and I'll take science and we'll see who can build the better shoulder to listen to. I'll take psychology over spirituality any day.

Ah, however your conclusion rests on an unstated assumption: that religion is incorrect.

If the naturalists are right, and we only have this life to worry about, then of course the naturalists have figured out the best way to live an effective life. Indeed the Christians would agree: If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 1 Cor 15:19

But if the Christians are right, and there is an afterlife to contend with, then the shoulder of Jesus suddenly becomes much more attractive.

Uhm. Have you read Genesis recently? Here's an online copy; let's go through it line by line.

• Gen 1: God creates the heavens and Earth. Before there is light. Meaning that the Earth was created before the Sun, or in fact before there was such a thing as electromagnetic radiation (depending on how you want to interpret it). This is objectively wrong either way.
• Gen 3: God creates light. Before the Sun. This means that there's light on Earth, without the Sun. This is objectively wrong.
• Gen 7: Apparently, the sky is made out of water? Must be why all our spaceships are built like submarines and have propellers. Except they aren't, because this is objectively wrong.
• Gen 11: Seed-bearing, land based plants and trees were the first kind of life on Earth? That's objectively wrong. Keep in mind that we still don't have a sun yet, either - plants and trees were created before the Sun, though oddly enough after there was light on Earth, which is simply ridiculous (and objectively wrong).
• Gen 14-18: We finally get the Sun! Man, now those plants have something to eat, besides this weird light that comes from nowhere. Note, however, that the moon was created after the first plant life, which is objectively wrong. Also, the Sun was created before the rest of the stars, which is objectively wrong. (oh yeah and the Earth was created before the rest of the stars as well, which is objectively wrong)
• Gen 20: Living creatures in the water? Cool, that's right (finally). But immediately from there we get birds? Not okay.
• Gen 24: Livestock were created before wild animals? Livestock existed before there were people to domesticate them? How is that even supposed to make sense? Also, this is the Garden of Eden, which in some interpretations means that there was no such thing as death and Adam and Eve wandered around naked. What would they do with livestock, unless God was already planning the Fall?

The rest of it is stuff about people which you've asked me not to mention; however, I'm sure you get the picture. There's plenty of stuff in in Genesis that's absolutely 100% wrong regardless of your interpretation.

Can we see these IN context please?

sure.