Slashdot Mirror

But Christians say that people cannot EVER BE PERFECT because of Original Sin(tm).

It doesn't matter how Noah or Zacharias or Elisabeth or Job died. The fact that they were said to be "perfect" at any time in their lives is an utter indictment of the concept of Original Sin. Perfect People

If you want to look at the status of people when they ended their lives on this Earth, you can always look at the story of Enoch, whom God felt was good enough to take directly into heaven without dying.

But Christians say that people cannot EVER BE PERFECT because of Original Sin(tm).

It doesn't matter how Noah or Zacharias or Elisabeth or Job died. The fact that they were said to be "perfect" at any time in their lives is an utter indictment of the concept of Original Sin. Perfect People

If you want to look at the status of people when they ended their lives on this Earth, you can always look at the story of Enoch, whom God felt was good enough to take directly into heaven without dying.

Wrong.

Nope, 'twas disobedience.

And what command was disobeyed? Geez, a little critical thinking isn't too much to ask, is it?

The Skeptic's Annotated bible is written by people who can read but either have very little understanding of what they read or are so severely biased that they're a joke themselves.

e.g. the two sisters -

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ezek/23.html

Ezekiel 23 (NIV)

Given the mention in verse 3 that the sisters Oholah= Samaria and Oholibah=Jerusalem, it's frigging obvious that it's about Samaria and Israel and how they were behaving - defiantly unfaithful to God (who they had a covenant with ).

The Israelites were to keep themselves separate from the other nations, and not to behave like them, and yet they did not.

And the Skeptic's Annotated Bible categorizes it under "Insults to Women in the Bible".

Doh.

I actually don't mind most of the atheists with brains. But so many atheists are actually fanatical to the point of stupidity, just like the religious people they like making fun of.

The Skeptic's Annotated bible is written by people who can read but either have very little understanding of what they read or are so severely biased that they're a joke themselves.

e.g. the two sisters -

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ezek/23.html

Ezekiel 23 (NIV)

Given the mention in verse 3 that the sisters Oholah= Samaria and Oholibah=Jerusalem, it's frigging obvious that it's about Samaria and Israel and how they were behaving - defiantly unfaithful to God (who they had a covenant with ).

The Israelites were to keep themselves separate from the other nations, and not to behave like them, and yet they did not.

And the Skeptic's Annotated Bible categorizes it under "Insults to Women in the Bible".

Doh.

I actually don't mind most of the atheists with brains. But so many atheists are actually fanatical to the point of stupidity, just like the religious people they like making fun of.

# Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8

# God likes neither woman nor pillows. He says, "Woe to the woman that sew pillows ... Behold, I am against your pillows." 13:18-21

Two sisters were guilty of "committing whoredoms" by pressing their breasts and bruising "the teats of their virginity." As a punishment, one sister's nakedness was discovered, her children were taken from her, and she was killed by the sword. And the fate of the surviving sister was even worse: Her nose and ears were cut off, she was made to "pluck off" her own breasts, and then after being raped and mutilated, she is stoned to death. Praise God. 23:1-49

# Paul explains that "the natural use" of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. 1:27

How many would you like?

You utter this like it is a fact when it is most certainly not. Many, if not most, Christians believe that the bible is the literal Word of God and is infallible. I was certainly taught this in Church. When the bible says "God said" this or "Jesus said" that Christians believe that God or Jesus actually uttered those words, and most of the Old Testament laws come directly from the mouth of God.

Lastly, the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. So there are no theological problems with Christians eating Bacon Cheeseburgers.

I agree that Christ nullified the kosher laws and a few others, but Christ did not supercede the vast majority of the Old Testament laws. I would assume that anything not specifically retracted by Jesus is still in effect. Of course, this also raises the question, why did God create the laws to begin with if they weren't important? Remember, violating any of God's laws is a sin, and the wages of sin is death. How can something be worthy of eternal damnation in one century but not in another?

Now there are theological problems with having a mortgage or car loan, but most of us ignore that.

How very convenient. How do you decide which of God's laws to follow and which you do not? Are God's laws absolute or not?

Worship is not quite the right term but many do choose to use worship to show thier devotion.

Worship IS the correct term and is used multiple times in the bible.

The apparent contradictions in the Bible result from Man's own incomplete understanding and fallibility.

So when the bible "apparently" contradicts itself, how do you decide which side is correct? For some cases it doesn't matter anyway, but for others, such as the salvation by faith or works issue, the price for being wrong is nothing less than your eternal soul. Have a nice day!

There seems to be some confusion on this issue. Both views are taught by different segments of the church. Some believe that salvation is not by faith alone but also by works, others believe that faith alone is sufficient.

There's no ass-kissing involved.

Aren't Christians required to worship God? Isn't that what they are doing during "worship" services on Sunday? Ass-kissing is a less flatering term for this of course.

There's no difficult list of rules, either.

Then why is the Old Testament still included in the bible, and still quoted frequently? Are you saying that we are no longer sinning if we don't follow the rules in the Old Testament? Are you saying that it just doesn't matter anymore? Are you saying that the laws are no longer relevant? If so, why did God create them in the first place? I thought that Christians belived in absolutes for good and evil (i.e. homosexuality is wrong because God said so). Are some of God's laws more absolute than others?

As simple as the list of Ten Commandments seems, have you kept them? Everyone says what an excellent set of rules they are, but I don't know anyone that has managed to keep them.

I thought that this was the whole point of Christianity, that we are all sinners and therefore need salvation through Christ. You seem to be saying that since no one can follow the laws, they don't matter anymore! This is certanly not a Christian perspective. BTW, the bible is also uncertain whether or not anyone has managed to follow all the laws. This is part of what makes the bible such a great religeous text, it has so many contradictions that you can almost always find some quote or another to support your view!

There seems to be some confusion on this issue. Both views are taught by different segments of the church. Some believe that salvation is not by faith alone but also by works, others believe that faith alone is sufficient.

There's no ass-kissing involved.

Aren't Christians required to worship God? Isn't that what they are doing during "worship" services on Sunday? Ass-kissing is a less flatering term for this of course.

There's no difficult list of rules, either.

Then why is the Old Testament still included in the bible, and still quoted frequently? Are you saying that we are no longer sinning if we don't follow the rules in the Old Testament? Are you saying that it just doesn't matter anymore? Are you saying that the laws are no longer relevant? If so, why did God create them in the first place? I thought that Christians belived in absolutes for good and evil (i.e. homosexuality is wrong because God said so). Are some of God's laws more absolute than others?

As simple as the list of Ten Commandments seems, have you kept them? Everyone says what an excellent set of rules they are, but I don't know anyone that has managed to keep them.

I thought that this was the whole point of Christianity, that we are all sinners and therefore need salvation through Christ. You seem to be saying that since no one can follow the laws, they don't matter anymore! This is certanly not a Christian perspective. BTW, the bible is also uncertain whether or not anyone has managed to follow all the laws. This is part of what makes the bible such a great religeous text, it has so many contradictions that you can almost always find some quote or another to support your view!

When I started typing this, I had some point in mind about how when even evangelical Christians can ignore IP laws ("thou shalt not steal" being the original DMCA) without a second thought, media companies are definitely in trouble.

Come on, evangelical christains are the world's experts at holding two conflicting beliefs at once.

But you should judge for yourself whether any of this is enough proof of false affirmations in the Bible. The point of skepticism is that there is nothing "uncontestable" in human knowledge. Undeniable beliefs are, and always will be, the realm of religion. Of course, if you start with an all-powerful God (so powerful that can even make logical contradictions become true) as an axiom, the outcomes can be wide indeed. But I wouldn't call them rigorous.

But you should judge for yourself whether any of this is enough proof of false affirmations in the Bible. The point of skepticism is that there is nothing "uncontestable" in human knowledge. Undeniable beliefs are, and always will be, the realm of religion. Of course, if you start with an all-powerful God (so powerful that can even make logical contradictions become true) as an axiom, the outcomes can be wide indeed. But I wouldn't call them rigorous.

But you should judge for yourself whether any of this is enough proof of false affirmations in the Bible. The point of skepticism is that there is nothing "uncontestable" in human knowledge. Undeniable beliefs are, and always will be, the realm of religion. Of course, if you start with an all-powerful God (so powerful that can even make logical contradictions become true) as an axiom, the outcomes can be wide indeed. But I wouldn't call them rigorous.

Read Deuteronomy. In most cases, you rape someone and you get stoned. Only when the chick isn't pledged to be married do you avoid a stoning, and you get the bonus that you can marry the rapee and you can't get divorced.

You're right about the Babel story. My mistake. I must have been thinking of something else entirely.

You know, I can pick various other scriptures and watch the bible bash itself. Like numerous "nobody has ever seen God and lived" compared with "Moses spoke with God face to face, as a man talks to his friend". 100% contradiction. The Bible is full of them. What about all those promises God gave but never fulfilled? I don't agree with all of these (many are subject to how you interpret them, but many more aren't) but check them out yourself.

And, if you're in the reading mood, compare Buddha and Jesus. Buddha lived some 800 years before Jesus. Funny, then, that Jesus has a life story almost 100% identical to Buddha and taught almost identical teachings! If I didn't know any better, I'd be tempted to say that Jesus copied everything Buddha did!

I've read your comments on this issue, bamberg. Thanks for giving me some hope in the existence of some rational human beings :-)

Thanks. It's helpful to know I'm not the only one who hasn't been taken in. :)

You might enjoy this link: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Oh, I've seen it and used it many times. It's a fantastic resource, although it does seem to piss the christians off for some reason... can't imagine why...

If you believe that he didn't exist, then how can you ignore all of the evidence that supports his existance? The existance of Jesus was recorded by several different people in different places and at different times. The existance of Jesus is accepted by most scholars, including atheists.

This turns out not to be the case. There is quite a bit of doubt about the authenticity of the bible, especially since the gospel accounts were all written well after Jesus's time and contradict each other.

The problem there lies that the majority of people he interacted with (back then and even now) claimed that he was a healer, a great teacher, and a prophet. I doubt you would get the same response for the cults you refer to.

The majority of people who interacted with Hercules (according to the Greek writings we have) described him as a great hero. Is he real? Superman always seems to get good press in his various books. Do you see the point? All you have to describe Jesus's supposed actions is the bible, the authenticity of which is in grave doubt (since it contains many errors, inconsistencies and tales of things that didn't happen).

This is very much untrue. The authenticity of the Bible has been proven by many scholars. I would suggest you read the book "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. It contains several scientific references to why the bible is authentic.

It certainly has not been proven that the bible is divinely inspired or a true history. I suggest you read the various rebuttals that have been written to Strobel's book.

They did know right from wrong, and we still do... by our conscious. But we "choose" to do wrong by our free will.

Reread Genesis; it was the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong that they ate from. God said they'd die, the snake said they wouldn't. Gee, they didn't die. But that's not the point; the point is that they didn't know right from wrong until they ate of the tree. And that's what pissed god off, that they learned right from wrong. Even though, being all-knowing, he knew in advance that this would happen.

God wishes that none shall perish (John 3: 16). All we have to do is to accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour which saves us from our debt of sins and therefore we do not go to hell.

If he wished that none would perish, none would perish. All-powerful, remember? The christian god is the ultimate mafia boss. "Gee, that's a nice soul you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."

Jesus had to die not to change the rule, but to keep the rule. The consequence of sin is death (spirtual death) and therefore there has to be payment for our sins. And with Jesus's death, He pays the debt for us so we do not have to die.

The consequence of sin (according to christian beliefs) is only death because god wants it to be. If he didn't want that to be the consequence, it wouldn't be (all-powerful, remember?) God creates the rule, creates the consequence, creates beings that he knows will break the rule, then threatens to torture them for all eternity unless they jump through his hoops. If the christian god existed, by definition nothing would happen in this universe in anything other than the precise way in which that god wanted it to happen (all-powerful, remember?)

You are right. But not for the reasons you state. It's because people don't want to believe that we are sinful and not perfect.

This is an interesting theory. I assume you have evidence that atheists consider thems

While I understand the futility of speaking in spiritual terms to someone who does not relate to spirituality (much like trying to talk math with an Art professor), I have to ask for clarification on at least one of your points:

After reading the text in question, I see no reference to rape. In fact, not even the Skeptic's Annotated Bible entry on Joshua has a reference. Could you perhaps give a more succinct citation?

Indeed. Christians also like to embrace their nice book too.

Once upon a time the people demanding freedom were the christians wanting to support christian morals. They wrote a constitution based upon their freedom.

No. The framers of the Constitution were largely deists, and the United States was never a christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli conclusively proves this. It's a common misconception (to be generous) to claim that the United States was founded on christianity, but it isn't true.

It worked fine until recently, when being free and being christian were different ideas.

These have always been different ideas. Christianity is all about obedience, not freedom. Try reading the bible.

The acts of many churches that call themselves Christian are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, which they claim as their source.

In what way? The bible certainly contains many instances of intolerance, injustice and cruelty. Since the work is claimed to be the word of god, there is no human who can decide that certain parts of it are invalid. There's certainly no basis to claim that christianity specifically promotes a libertarian attitude.

Anyone can claim to be Christian, and anyone can claim to speak for God. A lot of people do one or both. God knows who his true servants are. God does not allow me to speak for him, so I cannot tell you who they are. I can (if we wanted to get into it) spend a lot of time going over a lot of scripture and you can make some strong statements based on that scripture in some cases. Still a lot of borderline cases, not in the least because of all the forgiveness cases where someone fits many/all the signs of the unsaved, but are...

Anyone who believes that jesus is the saviour and that they have accepted him as such is a christian. It's the only definition that has any meaning in the real world. The good christians don't like that this definition includes the evil ones, but as long as the evil ones claim jesus as their saviour and can back their actions up with bible verses there's not much to be done about it.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that just like everyone else some christians are good, some are evil, and most are average. A person has to be judged as an individual, be they atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, none of the above or all of the above.

The acts of many churches that call themselves Christian are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, which they claim as their source.

In what way? The bible certainly contains many instances of intolerance, injustice and cruelty. Since the work is claimed to be the word of god, there is no human who can decide that certain parts of it are invalid. There's certainly no basis to claim that christianity specifically promotes a libertarian attitude.

Anyone can claim to be Christian, and anyone can claim to speak for God. A lot of people do one or both. God knows who his true servants are. God does not allow me to speak for him, so I cannot tell you who they are. I can (if we wanted to get into it) spend a lot of time going over a lot of scripture and you can make some strong statements based on that scripture in some cases. Still a lot of borderline cases, not in the least because of all the forgiveness cases where someone fits many/all the signs of the unsaved, but are...

Anyone who believes that jesus is the saviour and that they have accepted him as such is a christian. It's the only definition that has any meaning in the real world. The good christians don't like that this definition includes the evil ones, but as long as the evil ones claim jesus as their saviour and can back their actions up with bible verses there's not much to be done about it.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that just like everyone else some christians are good, some are evil, and most are average. A person has to be judged as an individual, be they atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, none of the above or all of the above.

The acts of many churches that call themselves Christian are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, which they claim as their source.

In what way? The bible certainly contains many instances of intolerance, injustice and cruelty. Since the work is claimed to be the word of god, there is no human who can decide that certain parts of it are invalid. There's certainly no basis to claim that christianity specifically promotes a libertarian attitude.

Anyone can claim to be Christian, and anyone can claim to speak for God. A lot of people do one or both. God knows who his true servants are. God does not allow me to speak for him, so I cannot tell you who they are. I can (if we wanted to get into it) spend a lot of time going over a lot of scripture and you can make some strong statements based on that scripture in some cases. Still a lot of borderline cases, not in the least because of all the forgiveness cases where someone fits many/all the signs of the unsaved, but are...

Anyone who believes that jesus is the saviour and that they have accepted him as such is a christian. It's the only definition that has any meaning in the real world. The good christians don't like that this definition includes the evil ones, but as long as the evil ones claim jesus as their saviour and can back their actions up with bible verses there's not much to be done about it.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that just like everyone else some christians are good, some are evil, and most are average. A person has to be judged as an individual, be they atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, none of the above or all of the above.

Name those passages.

I'm not the person you replied to, but I recommend the Skeptic's Annotated Bible as a starting point.

Someone went to a lot of trouble on that page to demonstrate their ignorance and lack of logical thinking skills.

Comparing two quotes made by Jesus to a series of verses from Psalms and Lamentations, and one verse in 1st Corinthians is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

1. The statements in Matthew and Luke were made by Jesus (God incarnate). The statements in Psalms, Lamentations, and 1 Corinthians were made by humans that followed God.
2. When you take the statements in the right-hand column in context, you will discover that the person writing them (in the case of Psalms and Lamentations) was essentially pouring his heart out to God. Asking, hoping, praying, or looking for justice or divine vengence is different from God giving a mandate for you to do it yourself.
3. The verse in 1 Corinthians carries a very different message than any of the others, and really doesn't belong in the list at all. This usage of the word "anathema" would more accurately be translated as "cursed". Since God is the only one that can really curse a person, this goes back to my previous point about the difference between God acting against a person vs. telling other humans to do it. See also my next point regarding the translation.
4. The verses cited suffer from a lack of clarity, since they are using language forms that most English speaking people no longer use (the King's English, circa A.D. 1600, as used in the King James' Version).
5. Even if we ignore the context problem that arises from using verses in Psalms and Lamentations, the changes that Jesus Christ made during his ministry made many of the rules in the Old Testament moot. His command to love our enemies superceded any previous command to the contrary (had there been one that wasn't specific to a particular situation). That only leaves the verse from 1 Corinthians, and I've already refuted that one.

The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that whereas Christianity merely has a few spotty things to say about Jews & certain groups, the Quran regularly tells its followers to fight for god, not "turn the other cheek".

There sure is a lot of love going on in those quotes.

Ha-haha. Not.
Well, I could say the same thing about this famous book, and let's see how funny that is. Just because you disagree with Ms. Clinton (one of the few female politicians, and a good one at that!) doesn't mean that her work is trash and undecipherable gibberish.
I normally wouldn't respond to this sort of a troll, but this sort of sheer idiociy makes my blood boil- though not as much as the asinine modding up of this troll.

Get yourself a bible. Make lots of notes; I've found http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
to be an excellent resource. Keep it near the door for religious callers, work through it point by point asking them to justify their answers, until they want to leave, then try and persuade them to stay just a little longer.

I haven't needed to use mine for several years, they just don't seem to stop here any more.

... So if you are trying to determine whether or not you should obey man's authority, the answer is yes, unless it contradicts God's laws as described in the Bible. ...

So genocide would be OK then?

... So if you are trying to determine whether or not you should obey man's authority, the answer is yes, unless it contradicts God's laws as described in the Bible. ...

So genocide would be OK then?

Well, okay, The Bible's inconsistent, but "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is not self-contradictory, even if the bible as a whole is.
The Sceptics Annotated Bible is a great place to look for more of the same!

>> don't think anyone could possibly claim ownership to such translations as the king James Version.

>Nope, it's public domain: The KJV Bible

It's public domain in most of the world, but in the UK, it is technically Crown Copyright which, at least in this specific case, acts as a sort-of early version of copyleft!

How true it is, brethren, that "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9) ;-)

You have no idea how truly disturbing and vile the Bible is.

If only a tiny fraction of that is true, we're talking about some of the greatest travesties and horrors of human history.

Please note the Cruelty, Injustices, and Insults to Women (a lot of rape and torture as punishment for crimes that are ignored if committed by men) sections.

Christians are often worried about people "turning away from God". Well, if you're a rational person who is concerned with justice, compassion, and morality, the Bible will turn you away pretty quick.

What absolutely amazes me is that it's legal to distribute the Christian Bible to children. No wonder a lot of people are mentally disturbed today. They are raised on a holy book that teaches them this!

You have no idea how truly disturbing and vile the Bible is.

If only a tiny fraction of that is true, we're talking about some of the greatest travesties and horrors of human history.

Please note the Cruelty, Injustices, and Insults to Women (a lot of rape and torture as punishment for crimes that are ignored if committed by men) sections.

Christians are often worried about people "turning away from God". Well, if you're a rational person who is concerned with justice, compassion, and morality, the Bible will turn you away pretty quick.

What absolutely amazes me is that it's legal to distribute the Christian Bible to children. No wonder a lot of people are mentally disturbed today. They are raised on a holy book that teaches them this!

You have no idea how truly disturbing and vile the Bible is.

If only a tiny fraction of that is true, we're talking about some of the greatest travesties and horrors of human history.

Please note the Cruelty, Injustices, and Insults to Women (a lot of rape and torture as punishment for crimes that are ignored if committed by men) sections.

Christians are often worried about people "turning away from God". Well, if you're a rational person who is concerned with justice, compassion, and morality, the Bible will turn you away pretty quick.

What absolutely amazes me is that it's legal to distribute the Christian Bible to children. No wonder a lot of people are mentally disturbed today. They are raised on a holy book that teaches them this!

You have no idea how truly disturbing and vile the Bible is.

If only a tiny fraction of that is true, we're talking about some of the greatest travesties and horrors of human history.

Please note the Cruelty, Injustices, and Insults to Women (a lot of rape and torture as punishment for crimes that are ignored if committed by men) sections.

Christians are often worried about people "turning away from God". Well, if you're a rational person who is concerned with justice, compassion, and morality, the Bible will turn you away pretty quick.

What absolutely amazes me is that it's legal to distribute the Christian Bible to children. No wonder a lot of people are mentally disturbed today. They are raised on a holy book that teaches them this!

I found The Skeptic's Annotated Bible to be way more easy to search.

Actually, this is one of the older editions of the bible ;) If you need ammunition, just go to the skeptic's annotated bible. Either you can make them look like a fool, or find support for sexual rights. You can also learn more about arguments on both sides. Have fun!

Rather than use this as a bible reference, a better source is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. That'll give you the true dope on the [ahem] "Good" book.

After watching "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones", I am disgusted at the amount of shameful homosexuality present in the film. Not since the 50s have Godly Christian viewers been subjected to such hedonistic filth. Consider, for example, Anakin (effeminately nicknamed 'Annie'), the precursor to Darth Vader. Played by "wanna-be" pretty-boy actress Natalie Portman, Anakin lusts after the slutty Queen Naboo, engaging in filthy acts of oral copulation next to a fireplace (obviously symbolising the fires of Hell in which they will surely roast to death after their final judgement). But wait, fellow Christians, there is more! A grizzly-green munchkin by the name of Yodo engages in an inter-species affair with the burly jedi Mace Windu, so vile and contemptible it would sure make the residents of Sodom and Gomorah blush! If that is not enough to upset your pure and innocent mind, harken that a flooded world is visited in which giant, walking tampons amass a huge army, an obvious insult to the original giant tampon, Noah, and his army of Beasts.

I hope these revelations allow you to make a just and informed decision in choosing movies Our Lord won't send you to Hell for watching.

Rosebud...

For those interested in seeing how uninsightful, superstitious, and self-contradicting the works of one of the dozens of ancient civilizations can be, feel free to check The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Especially if you are a woman, just, or tolerant.

For those interested in seeing how uninsightful, superstitious, and self-contradicting the works of one of the dozens of ancient civilizations can be, feel free to check The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Especially if you are a woman, just, or tolerant.

For those interested in seeing how uninsightful, superstitious, and self-contradicting the works of one of the dozens of ancient civilizations can be, feel free to check The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Especially if you are a woman, just, or tolerant.

For those interested in seeing how uninsightful, superstitious, and self-contradicting the works of one of the dozens of ancient civilizations can be, feel free to check The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Especially if you are a woman, just, or tolerant.

I would like to see some credible evidence before I'll believe that contradictions exist in the Bible.

Perhaps you haven't investigated this too deeply. I would suggest taking a look at this enumeration of "apparent" contradictions.

I am not attempting to discredit the Bible or the religion it supports. I am simply pointing out there's a lot to analyse and contemplate on this particular subject.

Go read for yourself.

Man, that brings back memories. Like the addy in your sig so much ( It'll come in handy) that I've marked you down as a friend.

> It's as though the Holy Bible had a concise and well written parody.

It does.

No, because most of them share a religion that at best, tolerates, and at worst, actively encourages killing of infidels.

Sounds a lot like christianity

>How you interperet the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with how tolerent you are!!

So, let's see, if we take the bible as a literal guide to life:

Mudering abusers is just.
Murdering brat children is such a good idea, God does it for you.
You should harm others at least as much as they harm you.
Do God a favour and kill all the gays so he doesn't have to.
Don't forget the furries too!
Let's not forget about the wiccans! Goddam hippies!
Everyone in Canada needs to commit suicide, now.

And that's only TWO books! What is that, 5% of the bible? Want more examples? There's literally hundreds, if not THOUSANDS more!

But, if you don't take those ideas literally, and simply take them as warnings, such as "Swearing at dad isn't a good thing", then it's fine (although, still intolerant, but as long as you're not going to force your religion on me, so be it).

But taking the bible literally is a call to anarchy, and most wouldn't consider that sane. Of course, if you think it's sane to murder people for being offensive, well, go right ahead (well, on second thought, please don't). I'm pretty sure they call that type of behaviour "psychotic", though.

>No, I think you show pretty well what intolerence looks like.

It looks like this. That's intolerance. On both sides.

I'm neither. You're free to preach the ways of wickedness against homosexuals, but I'm free to say you're nuts for doing so.

The bible is ONLY a good book if it is read carefully, and NOT interpreted literally. Otherwise it is a prelude to all out anarchy and war.

>but if you happen to interperet it more literally (ie. maybe, just maybe Jesus really meant it when he said "No on can enter the Father except through me.") then I don't like you and I am going to call you intolerent, a bigot, and 10 other things

Oh, no, that John 14:6 is perfectly fine with me, even if it is a confusing piece of the bible, it's relatively inoffensive.

I just have problems with the whole "Kill people because they are bad" thing, you know. I suppose you are right, I'm intolerant of people who have murder on their mind. Maybe that makes me a horrible sinful person.

Tolerance? You say a literal of interpretation of the Bible preaches tolerance? LOL!
But, thou shalt not kill, right?

That and the whole animal sacrifices thing, that disturbs me as well.

I HATE MURDERERS! SMITE ME! I'M AN INTOLERANT SOB (Aren't I supposed to be killed for that as well? Or at least smited for life!)

Hey, you asked for me to show you what I'm talking about. Which reminds me... I need to print out this post for the Jehovah's Witnesses next time they come by -- they did ask me what I had trouble with in the bible! Might as well be honest! That is a virtue... not something I'll be killed for... right?