Slashdot Mirror

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resi

BING BING BING -- we have a winner. The wording was changed just enough to stop argument and allow further plundering of science education by those who 'claim' to meet the criteria for course material via 'scientific evidence'....

Exactly. I mean, even the Bible contradicts itself.

To all you fanatics who keep referring to it as The One Holy Source Of Truth: go read it. If you want the past to be multiple choice, so be it. But tell all of them then.

I wonder if Cat has been cherry picking the Quran just like other religious appologists cherry-pick the Bible for nice verses and ignore the disgusting violence that is in both books based on Abrahams copying of Sumerian mythology.
Biblical Violence
Quranic Violence

I wonder if Cat has been cherry picking the Quran just like other religious appologists cherry-pick the Bible for nice verses and ignore the disgusting violence that is in both books based on Abrahams copying of Sumerian mythology.
Biblical Violence
Quranic Violence

You know what else fell out of fashion? Stoning. Man, I miss a good stoning.

All of society's ills could be fixed with a few proper stonings, including but not limited to:

Cursing
Blasphemy
Adultery (including rape victims who don't protest loudly enough)
Disobeying your parents
Touching Mt. Sinai
Not being a virgin on your wedding night (Ladies only!)

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html

Forgot to mention, in my other semi less friendly post, that you might want to look at this convenient list http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html . It lists references to Crualty and Violence within the scope only of the New testament. =)

• "God said 'let there be light'," and whoof there was a universe. -- and that's inconsistent with 'big bang', in just what way?

Where does it say "whoof there was a universe"? Isn't it more like "and there was light"? By this time the earth had already been formed, so there's an inconsistency of a few billion years right there.

If you think the biblical version of events is even remotely scientific, then I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read it. This would be a good place to start.

This version is better skeptics annotated bible and Free!!

how do you know it's a lie? have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone? while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...

I don't need to because many people already have. Here's a few to get you started.

• Was Darwin Wrong?
• Science, Evolution, and Creationism
• Evolution Resources from the National Academy of Science

Honestly, not wanting your kid's science class to teach intelligent design to your kids is no different (to anyone remotely familiar with scientific evidence, anyway) than not wanting your kid's math class to teach them the "theory" that pi equals 3 (1 Kings 7:23).

Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so) (and following genesis quote)

Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.

Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).

Genesis 19:8: "19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." etc..etc.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html You would've thought that a prophet charged with punishing the nasty gay people for their sins would set a better example than trading his daughters as collateral for his imaginary sky friend.

Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.

Except that bit where I was forced to read it by a load of fundie teachers and do a GCSE exam on the subject, before joining a bible reading group.

if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?

Splitting hairs over the specific number of animals that boarded the ark is hardly a reasonable argument. If you're going to defend the story, supposed to be making the whole thing sound plausible, not say "haha, you didn't quote it verbatim".

I don't think it's as much really believing in the existence of other gods as acknowledging the fact that other people believed in other gods.

How is that 'minor' adultery? Sounds to me like, well... adultery. Unqualified and plain adultery with no excuses.

In fact I'm not clear that there is such a thing as minor adultery. Jesus - whose teachings most Christians seem to hold in some regard - certainly felt quite strongly about it:

5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Even the thought of it is enough. You didn't actually do anything with her... but you wanted to, right? And you would have, given the chance? Guilty as charged.

Old Testament! Fun. I can do that too. Take a gander at this OT family "value" that you'll never hear preached on or read in your church: Abraham married his sister and god blessed the marriage: Gen ch. 17 and 20 Abe had many slave sluts Gen. 25:6 Jacob "has" both sisters Gen 29 god kills Er, Judah tells Onan to rape Er's wife but Onan at least has the decensy to not ejaculate in her which makes god mad that he didn't ejaculate in her so god kills him Gen. 38. This wonderful story you'll never hear in Sunday school yet it is the basis for church teachings against masturbation and birth control. God murders children Gen. 12 God decides girl babies are dirtier than boy babies Gen 12 Kids who yell at their parents should be killed Gen. 20 If your son is stubborn and rebellious don't use Dr. Dobson's "Tough Love" - just stone them Deut. 21. many more wonderful "family values" can be quickly found then verified at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html and yes, I read all those long before I ever even discovered that handy Concordance.

Thats the problem with religion, everyone interprets things to thier own whim. God kills all of the sodomites in genesis... actually instead of going over the 1000s of acts of violence i'll point you to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html . You know god does order man to kill women and children since the fighting men werent enough? But thats not killing infidels, no its killing sinners, unbelievers and their families. Christian God is obviously so much better. Now lets you post a link to a good 100pages of bloody cruelty in the koran please while i'm sure it has as much gore as the bible it irks me you didn't cite your baseless conclusion. Not that it matters since its JUST a book. God damn religious people are blind >.

Ok, have you read this?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I bet you can find some contradictions to science here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

If this was really the word of some omniscient, omnipotent being, I would expect something more profound than a treatise that could've been written by a bronze-age sheep herder, which is what it is. I do not care if people want to believe in fairy tales. I do care when they want to govern based on them.

My Favorite passage is in Deuteronomy were you can Rape a virgin and then Buy her for 50 Sheckels

22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Hey, let's be fair, they worked really hard for it. It's no piece of cake to massacre entire nations to take over their lands.

They would be happy to go back to the dark ages, but want to take you and the rest the World with em 'cause Mohamed said So!
The Quran, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. -- Sam Harris 1. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6 2. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10 3. Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18 4. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24 5. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90 6. Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61 7. Only those Jews and Christians who convert to Islam will be rewarded with heaven. 2:62 8. Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66 9. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85 10. Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88 11. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:89 12. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96 13. Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98 14. Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99 15. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104 16. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114 17. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119 18. Disbelievers are losers. 2:121 19. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126 20. "Who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?" Cited in the Hamas Charter (Article 27) to condemn the idea of a secular state. 2:130 21. Those who reject the proofs, are accursed of Allah. 2:159 22. Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161 23. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162 24. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167 25. Disbelievers will be deaf, dumb, and blind. 2:171 26. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174 27. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175 28. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178 29. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2 30. Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193 31. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206 32. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216 33. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217 34. Intermarriage is forbidden. 2:221 35. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. 2:254 36. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257 37. Allah does not guide disbelievers. 2:264 38. "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286 39. Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4 40. Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10 41. Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12 42. Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19 43. Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21 44. "They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24 45. Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. 3:28 46. Allah loveth not the disbelievers. 3:32 47. Allah will punish

I wonder if they have blocked this site: Skeptics annotated Quran

Cruelty in the Quran -
These are the first 10, there are 500 more after these
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html


Those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell.--8:36

Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6

Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10

A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90
"Whosoever hath done evil and his sin surroundeth him; such are rightful owners of the Fire." 2:81

If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96

For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104

For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114

"And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119

If you somehow used the "one body in christ" doctrine to implicate all christians in a RICO suit, would this qualify as an epic win?

The greatest evidence that the God of Abraham doesn't exist, is from the very book[s] that proclaims he does. Then there's the whole mess about it being a ripoff of Egyptian mythology, with a healthy dose of Greek and Pagan mythology thrown in for fun.

The greatest evidence that the God of Abraham doesn't exist, is from the very book[s] that proclaims he does. Then there's the whole mess about it being a ripoff of Egyptian mythology, with a healthy dose of Greek and Pagan mythology thrown in for fun.

I will focus on Christianity since I know most about it.

Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services.

Opinions differ on tithing, but we also have examples of monetary payment for sins.

Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality.

People often pray for people to be healed and they will be healed. That is clearly belief in supernatural influence on reality.

Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation.

Are you kidding? It is even worse than believing they are doomed, but that you must go and punish (kill) them yourself. See Deuteronomy 8-19, 13-6, 13-12, Jeremiah 1-16, and 16-10. And this nearly pales in comparison to Islam.

I am afraid many more religions offer this bunk than you seem to believe.

I will focus on Christianity since I know most about it.

Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services.

Opinions differ on tithing, but we also have examples of monetary payment for sins.

Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality.

People often pray for people to be healed and they will be healed. That is clearly belief in supernatural influence on reality.

Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation.

Are you kidding? It is even worse than believing they are doomed, but that you must go and punish (kill) them yourself. See Deuteronomy 8-19, 13-6, 13-12, Jeremiah 1-16, and 16-10. And this nearly pales in comparison to Islam.

I am afraid many more religions offer this bunk than you seem to believe.

I will focus on Christianity since I know most about it.

Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services.

Opinions differ on tithing, but we also have examples of monetary payment for sins.

Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality.

People often pray for people to be healed and they will be healed. That is clearly belief in supernatural influence on reality.

Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation.

Are you kidding? It is even worse than believing they are doomed, but that you must go and punish (kill) them yourself. See Deuteronomy 8-19, 13-6, 13-12, Jeremiah 1-16, and 16-10. And this nearly pales in comparison to Islam.

I am afraid many more religions offer this bunk than you seem to believe.

I will focus on Christianity since I know most about it.

Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services.

Opinions differ on tithing, but we also have examples of monetary payment for sins.

Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality.

People often pray for people to be healed and they will be healed. That is clearly belief in supernatural influence on reality.

Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation.

Are you kidding? It is even worse than believing they are doomed, but that you must go and punish (kill) them yourself. See Deuteronomy 8-19, 13-6, 13-12, Jeremiah 1-16, and 16-10. And this nearly pales in comparison to Islam.

I am afraid many more religions offer this bunk than you seem to believe.

I will focus on Christianity since I know most about it.

Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services.

Opinions differ on tithing, but we also have examples of monetary payment for sins.

Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality.

People often pray for people to be healed and they will be healed. That is clearly belief in supernatural influence on reality.

Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation.

Are you kidding? It is even worse than believing they are doomed, but that you must go and punish (kill) them yourself. See Deuteronomy 8-19, 13-6, 13-12, Jeremiah 1-16, and 16-10. And this nearly pales in comparison to Islam.

I am afraid many more religions offer this bunk than you seem to believe.

That's only blasphemy which is allowed under current US law.

So, just to be extra clear, when I say Jesus taught non-violence, I do mean that he told His would-be followers that they were not to use violence to resolve problems or "convert" others. He did not teach that we were to go on religious crusades, hold inquisitions, torture, persecute, or really anything but love each other. The "church" has done those things, but there are no sayings of Christ in any known "scripture" (canon or not) to back up those deeds. He even explicitly told us "judge not lest ye be judged" so I would say that even though he had no problems with the Old Testament (neither do I), He doesn't want me to go around stoning people (and I don't). This applies to his followers. For God, or the Romans, or any state, maybe it's different, but for real people claiming to follow Jesus it is very clear: love others. Do not kill others, even to defend yourself. Period.

This was the topic at hand. Do the world's religion's teachings line up with the actions of their followers? Are most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. hypocrites or are the source texts vauge and allow for some interpretation? How can we go to war to "defend" tenets such as "thou shall not kill?" My position is if you look at the source texts (e.g. the bible, the gita) then you will find that there are legitimate differences between the various religions, AND that the "common practices" and various bits of dogma (such as WWJK, Who Would Jesus Kill?) bear very little resemblance to the original source text. Christ taught non-violence, if you think Paul did not, fine, but Paul does not quote Christ in his letters, not once. (As I remember. I could of course be wrong about that.)

And Paul couldn't quote him anyway. He claims that he only met the ghost of Jesus, and at that only once. The synoptic books claim to make an attempt at a faithful (accurate) rendition of Christ's actions and sayings, verbatim. I'm not sure there is any way to prove if they were successful or not. My "person opinion" is that they are accurate renditions. The "logic" goes like this: the council of nicaea came a couple of hundred years after these words were written down. What is canon and what is not canon was determined by men, mere humans, well after the fact. I do not reference these people as an authority on what to believe. I read everything I can, apocrypha, heresy, everything. The people who wrote these words down most likely belived what they were writing. I do not think they made many errors, or lied (very much). Who knows? Not the men of Nicaea, that's for certain.

If you reject the Council of Nicaea, how do you determine canon? Personal opinion?

Well, uh, yes, actually. Personal opionion is all I have. I must take responsibility for everything I believe, even if it is to only appeal to some authority. You mistakenly assume that I believe that "the bible" is infalible. I don't. I can't believe that when I don't even know who wrote it. But something in Christ's words resonated with me, and I became a believer in Him. There is some faith here, but it is not a faith in editors and dead bishops from Asia Minor that I have.

And regardless of authorship issues, what is canon, or not, all we have now are the words. And Christ's words do not "call for violence." Ever.

Calls for violence in the NT: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

If these paraphrased scriptures are supposed to be "calls for violence" (not one of them is of course) because they obliquely reference "blood," "death," "hell" or "God's wrath" then we'll n

The Bible really does state that homosexuality is wrong, and thus it is a sin.

Why?

No, really. Why?

Murder is a sin, I get that. Theft and robbery are sins, makes sense to me. Breaking the trust of your spouse, bearing false witness, envying other people's possessions: for almost all of the Big 10, it's pretty clear even to me that they're morally wrong.

Despite being an atheist, it seems to me that "love thy neighbor as thyself" [Leviticus 19:18, repeated multiple times in the New Testament], rather than being something revealed only in the Bible, is writ large in the world itself, and pretty much all moral conduct flows from it. Love Thy Neighbor, the Golden Rule, Buddhism's Eightfold Path, Secular Humanism, and the winning strategy for Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in Game Theory all point back to the same underlying basis for moral behavior.

I don't murder another because I wouldn't wish to be murdered if our roles were reversed. I don't steal because I wouldn't want to have my own hard-earned property taken from me. I don't break any promise I make, or lie about others, because I'm hurt when another person breaks a promise made to me, or lies about me, and I wouldn't wish that hurt on anyone else. I don't covet or envy because nothing good can come of it, and if I did it anyway I'd waste my own valuable time thinking about it.

I'm sure you believe God put it there when it was writ large in the world itself, and despite my atheism, far be it from me to dispel that notion in you. But I think it's important to note that, of the sins and commandments listed in the Bible, "love thy neighbor as thyself" is the only one that is writ large in such a way, with the other important ones being the obvious consequences of that singular truth.

Homosexuality? I see no basis by which it could be inherently immoral.

Humans have a deep, instinctual drive to form lasting pair-bonds. There's a cornucopia of research out there showing that people — men especially — are far more mentally and emotionally stable when they have the benefit of a stable romantic relationship. What's more, while there's a web of cause and effect that remains untangled, it's certainly instructive that Catholic priests are (unlike Protestant ministers) required to remain celibate and are (also unlike Protestant ministers) associated with one of the broadest and most disturbing sex scandals ever associated with religion. Married ministers produce the occasional Bakker or Swaggart, but never the sort of sprawling, slow-motion train wreck of a scandal produced by celibate priests.

The interesting part here is that the New Testament is quite clearly in favor of celibacy over marriage, which is why the Roman Catholic Church does it that way in the first place. Paul clearly states that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" [1 Corinthians 7:1], and that sex of any sort, even in marriage, is a stain in God's eyes. However, because celibacy conflicts with human nature, even Paul acknowledged that marriage was an acceptable compromise to avoid the greater of two evils [1 Corinthians 7:7-9]. I'd say that the priest molestation scandal shows pretty conclusively exactly what he was talking about, and why a policy of celibate priests is a bad idea — probably why it was abandoned by Protestants a long time ago.

The thing of it is, though, that a lot of those guilty priests became priests because they were gay: Catholic teaching holds that gay sex is immoral, so they were compelled to remain celibate regardless. If gay sex (or, horror of horrors, gay marriage) had been available to them as a valid option, they probably wouldn't have b

The Bible really does state that homosexuality is wrong, and thus it is a sin.

Why?

No, really. Why?

Murder is a sin, I get that. Theft and robbery are sins, makes sense to me. Breaking the trust of your spouse, bearing false witness, envying other people's possessions: for almost all of the Big 10, it's pretty clear even to me that they're morally wrong.

Despite being an atheist, it seems to me that "love thy neighbor as thyself" [Leviticus 19:18, repeated multiple times in the New Testament], rather than being something revealed only in the Bible, is writ large in the world itself, and pretty much all moral conduct flows from it. Love Thy Neighbor, the Golden Rule, Buddhism's Eightfold Path, Secular Humanism, and the winning strategy for Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in Game Theory all point back to the same underlying basis for moral behavior.

I don't murder another because I wouldn't wish to be murdered if our roles were reversed. I don't steal because I wouldn't want to have my own hard-earned property taken from me. I don't break any promise I make, or lie about others, because I'm hurt when another person breaks a promise made to me, or lies about me, and I wouldn't wish that hurt on anyone else. I don't covet or envy because nothing good can come of it, and if I did it anyway I'd waste my own valuable time thinking about it.

I'm sure you believe God put it there when it was writ large in the world itself, and despite my atheism, far be it from me to dispel that notion in you. But I think it's important to note that, of the sins and commandments listed in the Bible, "love thy neighbor as thyself" is the only one that is writ large in such a way, with the other important ones being the obvious consequences of that singular truth.

Homosexuality? I see no basis by which it could be inherently immoral.

Humans have a deep, instinctual drive to form lasting pair-bonds. There's a cornucopia of research out there showing that people — men especially — are far more mentally and emotionally stable when they have the benefit of a stable romantic relationship. What's more, while there's a web of cause and effect that remains untangled, it's certainly instructive that Catholic priests are (unlike Protestant ministers) required to remain celibate and are (also unlike Protestant ministers) associated with one of the broadest and most disturbing sex scandals ever associated with religion. Married ministers produce the occasional Bakker or Swaggart, but never the sort of sprawling, slow-motion train wreck of a scandal produced by celibate priests.

The interesting part here is that the New Testament is quite clearly in favor of celibacy over marriage, which is why the Roman Catholic Church does it that way in the first place. Paul clearly states that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" [1 Corinthians 7:1], and that sex of any sort, even in marriage, is a stain in God's eyes. However, because celibacy conflicts with human nature, even Paul acknowledged that marriage was an acceptable compromise to avoid the greater of two evils [1 Corinthians 7:7-9]. I'd say that the priest molestation scandal shows pretty conclusively exactly what he was talking about, and why a policy of celibate priests is a bad idea — probably why it was abandoned by Protestants a long time ago.

The thing of it is, though, that a lot of those guilty priests became priests because they were gay: Catholic teaching holds that gay sex is immoral, so they were compelled to remain celibate regardless. If gay sex (or, horror of horrors, gay marriage) had been available to them as a valid option, they probably wouldn't have b

The Bible really does state that homosexuality is wrong, and thus it is a sin.

Why?

No, really. Why?

Murder is a sin, I get that. Theft and robbery are sins, makes sense to me. Breaking the trust of your spouse, bearing false witness, envying other people's possessions: for almost all of the Big 10, it's pretty clear even to me that they're morally wrong.

Despite being an atheist, it seems to me that "love thy neighbor as thyself" [Leviticus 19:18, repeated multiple times in the New Testament], rather than being something revealed only in the Bible, is writ large in the world itself, and pretty much all moral conduct flows from it. Love Thy Neighbor, the Golden Rule, Buddhism's Eightfold Path, Secular Humanism, and the winning strategy for Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in Game Theory all point back to the same underlying basis for moral behavior.

I don't murder another because I wouldn't wish to be murdered if our roles were reversed. I don't steal because I wouldn't want to have my own hard-earned property taken from me. I don't break any promise I make, or lie about others, because I'm hurt when another person breaks a promise made to me, or lies about me, and I wouldn't wish that hurt on anyone else. I don't covet or envy because nothing good can come of it, and if I did it anyway I'd waste my own valuable time thinking about it.

I'm sure you believe God put it there when it was writ large in the world itself, and despite my atheism, far be it from me to dispel that notion in you. But I think it's important to note that, of the sins and commandments listed in the Bible, "love thy neighbor as thyself" is the only one that is writ large in such a way, with the other important ones being the obvious consequences of that singular truth.

Homosexuality? I see no basis by which it could be inherently immoral.

Humans have a deep, instinctual drive to form lasting pair-bonds. There's a cornucopia of research out there showing that people — men especially — are far more mentally and emotionally stable when they have the benefit of a stable romantic relationship. What's more, while there's a web of cause and effect that remains untangled, it's certainly instructive that Catholic priests are (unlike Protestant ministers) required to remain celibate and are (also unlike Protestant ministers) associated with one of the broadest and most disturbing sex scandals ever associated with religion. Married ministers produce the occasional Bakker or Swaggart, but never the sort of sprawling, slow-motion train wreck of a scandal produced by celibate priests.

The interesting part here is that the New Testament is quite clearly in favor of celibacy over marriage, which is why the Roman Catholic Church does it that way in the first place. Paul clearly states that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" [1 Corinthians 7:1], and that sex of any sort, even in marriage, is a stain in God's eyes. However, because celibacy conflicts with human nature, even Paul acknowledged that marriage was an acceptable compromise to avoid the greater of two evils [1 Corinthians 7:7-9]. I'd say that the priest molestation scandal shows pretty conclusively exactly what he was talking about, and why a policy of celibate priests is a bad idea — probably why it was abandoned by Protestants a long time ago.

The thing of it is, though, that a lot of those guilty priests became priests because they were gay: Catholic teaching holds that gay sex is immoral, so they were compelled to remain celibate regardless. If gay sex (or, horror of horrors, gay marriage) had been available to them as a valid option, they probably wouldn't have b

You may well be trolling, but assuming you're serious:

he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years.

What, this omnipotent god of yours had to work through a bunch of balding monkeys, rather that just saying "Zotz! Biblios appearus!" or something?

I can walk into the library and find dozens, if not hundreds, of books that claim to be inspired by gods or other supernatural entities, from the Upanishads to the latest New Age bestseller from someone channeling telepathic transmissions from Sirius. The Bible just ain't special.

including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written

What, prophecies like Jesus's that the world would end during the lifetime of some of his followers (Luke 9:27: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.", and 21:32: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.":)

Let me write and edit a book in which I get to report both the prophecy and the outcomes, and I could make all sorts of prophecies come true. But Biblical authors and editors couldn't even do that.

with no contradictions in the book.

I'm afraid you're again in error.

Look, if you find churchgoing a rewarding expereince, great. Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.

But if you believe that the Bible is any guide to history, cosmology, metaphysics, or pretty much any aspect of objective consensus reality, you're sadly mistaken.

You may well be trolling, but assuming you're serious:

he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years.

What, this omnipotent god of yours had to work through a bunch of balding monkeys, rather that just saying "Zotz! Biblios appearus!" or something?

I can walk into the library and find dozens, if not hundreds, of books that claim to be inspired by gods or other supernatural entities, from the Upanishads to the latest New Age bestseller from someone channeling telepathic transmissions from Sirius. The Bible just ain't special.

including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written

What, prophecies like Jesus's that the world would end during the lifetime of some of his followers (Luke 9:27: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.", and 21:32: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.":)

Let me write and edit a book in which I get to report both the prophecy and the outcomes, and I could make all sorts of prophecies come true. But Biblical authors and editors couldn't even do that.

with no contradictions in the book.

I'm afraid you're again in error.

Look, if you find churchgoing a rewarding expereince, great. Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.

But if you believe that the Bible is any guide to history, cosmology, metaphysics, or pretty much any aspect of objective consensus reality, you're sadly mistaken.

or the Bible or Koran...

Of course, when people start saying 'God told me to kill you,' it's time to lock them up. Weird thing is, organised religions ,,. will even agree with you on this.

Islam demands believers to be completely submissive to an Islamic, theocratic form of government

I find it amusing that you state outright what a religion is without giving any form of reference or authority. Nothing in the Qu'ran tells Muslims to be subserviant to governments; in fact it explicitly says that as an individual you are to be only subserviant to god.

To take individual phrases out of the Qu'ran and hold them up as proof of anything is simply ignorance and/or deceit. This can be done from any text, old or new (testament).

Please don't spread the crap that drips out of the Annals of The Internet. Actually sit down and read the text from which you bleed this FUD and understand the true spirit of what it says. The Qu'ran actually challenges all muslims to challenge their own beliefs, not to rely on the words of men, and most certainly not to worship idols (as many of the "extremists" that CNN likes to harp on about do...those people are to Islam what the Peoples Temple and the Branch Dividians are to Christianity).

Good point.

If you want to know why I hate what Islam stands for, go read their Holy Book.

Listening to bigotry and hatred should not be called for. Simply reading what the Quran says will show you the hatred and intolerance.

3:4 those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom.

3:19 Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.

3:73 believe not save in one who followeth your religion

3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater.

Just a taste of what the Quran hides.

Bleh.

So? The Old Testament says that you should kill anyone who tries to lead you to worship a false God. Deuteronomy 13. I guess Christianity and Judiasm are religions of hate as well.

Well congrats on explaining away all the confusions and apparent contradictions in the first couple of hundred words in the Bible! Just another 65 odd books to go - get cracking!

The Bible should be banned because it is a book of murder and cruelty,

but Manhunt should be allowed to be played because its murder and cruelty is entertainment.

Earth really has a prosperous future...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.htm l

Have fun reading!

I don't know.

Abraham is supposed to kill his son because of some voices he heard in his head? And he gets rewarded?

Sounds pretty crazy to me. And there's much more. For more fun and violence in the Bible, visit here

BTW, throughout the biblical text, God gets round to killing over 2 million people. Wonder how that compares to the game.

One of my favourites: A man gives his guest's concubine to a mob, who rape her all night, and in the morning, he cuts her up into pieces. Judges 19:22

Just curious...what are the contradictions? Can you list a few of the 'biggies'?

Oh geeze, where to begin.

Let's start with this one: Not only can the Bible not agree on the lineage of Jesus, it can't even agree on how many generations there were between him and David. Matthew 1:6-16 has 28 generations, Luke 3:21-31 has 43. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of overlapping names on those two lists. And no, one of them was not Mary's genealogy as hers would have been irrelevant in a patriarchal society.

Further, the whole idea of Jesus being born of a virgin is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "young woman." It is from this that the whole Christian preoccupation with sex (except for between priest and altar boy, that's hunky-dory) comes from. The havoc this has wrought, through such idiocies as abstinence-only education and opposition to contraception, needs no further discussion. And the wingnuts would have us base our secular public policy on this crap? Ridiculous!

For an interesting perspective, check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, of course it's biased, but it breaks down the absurdities, contradictions, and logical fallacies pretty thoroughly on a verse-by-verse basis. For added fun, check out the Quran and the Book of Mormon.