Slashdot Mirror

>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?

>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?

>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?

>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?

>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?

>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?

>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?

>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?

>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?

>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?

I don't know why I even bother responding to such an obvious Troll, but I'm going to anyway. No doubt, I'll stumble over some specifics (corrections/refinements are welcome), but here goes...

Firstly, you should read more posts; most of them actually make fun of the concept of using The Matrix as any kind of meaningful vehicle for proselytizing.

As to your second point, the bible repeatedly proves itself wrong.

Look, if you want to think that the bible is some kind of repository of moral rectitude, be my guest. But don't make the mistake of believing that it's infallible. The only people I've ever met who think every word in the bible is the literal truth are people who have yet to read any significant portion of it. As to the Noachian flood myths, study some geology. Absent that, read some more informed sources.

Your third point suffers from a number of misconceptions. First of all (and any number of Cosmologists can explain this far better and more accurately than I can), no one says that the Big Bang theory disproves the existence of god; what it does tell us is that the universe has a definite starting point and that the origins of the earth, planet, sun, stars, and other celestial bodies (which, BTW, we are able to observe but whose existence is conspicuously absent from the bible) are derivatives of physical constants set in motion by the big bang, thus eliminating the need for constant divine intervention (as described in Genesis--actually, described twice in Genesis, in accounts that differ significantly).

Additionally, I know of no "two-second rule" in the big bang theory; last I heard, we had refined our knowledge of the big bang process down to a few milliseconds. And there is no mention in any cosmology I have ever read that mentions any atoms rubbing together. In fact, most physical cosmolgies posit a super-dense mass of subatomic particles that is several orders of magnitude more dense than atomic structures. As to the period of time before the big bang, there you enter some interesting territory. Interesting from a philosophical standpoint, not from a physical one, however. There is no way for us to observe what may or may not have occurred "beyond" the "big bang barrier", thus, anything that may or may not have existed "before" that moment is essentially meaningless to us.

And please, please don't ever revert to the 'a theory is not a law' chestnut; it's embarrassing to have to explain something so rudimentary. a hypothesis and a theory are not the same thing. A hypothesis is a guess. In science, a hypothesis is a guess about how something works. A theory is an understanding of how something works, backed up by testing and observation. In science, "theory" and "law" mean essentially the same thing. We prefer the term "theory" because it is more precise than "law." We cannot, for example, know every possible permutation of the Special Theory of Relativity--they're infinite. We can say with a fair degree of certainty, however, that the relativity principle combined with the Maxwell equations demonstrates that E=mc^2. Mass graves in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are testament to this fact.

Fourthly, the existence of religious themes in popular entertainment demonstrates precisely nothing about the extent to which religion was "a great part of the writers' lives growing up." Frankly, I think the Matrix is a horrible example of religious allegory. Neo (and the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar) killed scores of people whose only crime was not knowing that they were victims of an elaborate deception. Now,

I don't know why I even bother responding to such an obvious Troll, but I'm going to anyway. No doubt, I'll stumble over some specifics (corrections/refinements are welcome), but here goes...

Firstly, you should read more posts; most of them actually make fun of the concept of using The Matrix as any kind of meaningful vehicle for proselytizing.

As to your second point, the bible repeatedly proves itself wrong.

Look, if you want to think that the bible is some kind of repository of moral rectitude, be my guest. But don't make the mistake of believing that it's infallible. The only people I've ever met who think every word in the bible is the literal truth are people who have yet to read any significant portion of it. As to the Noachian flood myths, study some geology. Absent that, read some more informed sources.

Your third point suffers from a number of misconceptions. First of all (and any number of Cosmologists can explain this far better and more accurately than I can), no one says that the Big Bang theory disproves the existence of god; what it does tell us is that the universe has a definite starting point and that the origins of the earth, planet, sun, stars, and other celestial bodies (which, BTW, we are able to observe but whose existence is conspicuously absent from the bible) are derivatives of physical constants set in motion by the big bang, thus eliminating the need for constant divine intervention (as described in Genesis--actually, described twice in Genesis, in accounts that differ significantly).

Additionally, I know of no "two-second rule" in the big bang theory; last I heard, we had refined our knowledge of the big bang process down to a few milliseconds. And there is no mention in any cosmology I have ever read that mentions any atoms rubbing together. In fact, most physical cosmolgies posit a super-dense mass of subatomic particles that is several orders of magnitude more dense than atomic structures. As to the period of time before the big bang, there you enter some interesting territory. Interesting from a philosophical standpoint, not from a physical one, however. There is no way for us to observe what may or may not have occurred "beyond" the "big bang barrier", thus, anything that may or may not have existed "before" that moment is essentially meaningless to us.

And please, please don't ever revert to the 'a theory is not a law' chestnut; it's embarrassing to have to explain something so rudimentary. a hypothesis and a theory are not the same thing. A hypothesis is a guess. In science, a hypothesis is a guess about how something works. A theory is an understanding of how something works, backed up by testing and observation. In science, "theory" and "law" mean essentially the same thing. We prefer the term "theory" because it is more precise than "law." We cannot, for example, know every possible permutation of the Special Theory of Relativity--they're infinite. We can say with a fair degree of certainty, however, that the relativity principle combined with the Maxwell equations demonstrates that E=mc^2. Mass graves in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are testament to this fact.

Fourthly, the existence of religious themes in popular entertainment demonstrates precisely nothing about the extent to which religion was "a great part of the writers' lives growing up." Frankly, I think the Matrix is a horrible example of religious allegory. Neo (and the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar) killed scores of people whose only crime was not knowing that they were victims of an elaborate deception. Now,

A1: Most of Wikipedia's pages have a PageRank of at least 6/10. Many have 7 and 8. Approximately 1 in 20 Wikipedia pages turn up in the top ten on a Google search for the given term (see here for a partial list). Google is Wikipedia's #1 source of traffic.

A2: For a famous America poet like Whitman, a quick Google search will bring up a good introduction. But let's try something a little harder. I want a general, neutral intro to the Bible. From the first page of results, we get:

Google

Attempt #1, search for "bible": all sites with a religious interest.

Attempt #2, search for "introduction to the bible": #1 is from infidels.org (an atheist information site; useful, but not neutral), the rest are more religious sites, books for sale and Bible code sites.

Attempt #3, search for "general bible information": all religious sites.

Wikipedia:

Attempt #1, search for "bible": #1 hit is an article called "Bible", which is very good (but has a couple rough spots). Includes an extended general introduction, massive number of cross-references to more detailed topics and related articles (religions, interpretation, translation, historical context), plus a selection of external links to various translations, including the The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Stephen G.

The Ten Commandments depends upon whether you read Moses' ten or Paul's six (seven?) which are subtly different (See Skeptics Annotated Bible). And originally it was "Thou shalt not covert they neighbours wife". In the time of Moses it was perfectly acceptable to have more than one wife and to go outside marriage as long as the woman concerned wasn't married her-self. It's only later translations and moralities which have changed it.

Continuing from the other thread... Yes the previous one was a bit elitist. Not a problem I tend to do it especially on bad days. But hey I'm enjoying this debate no matter how OT it may be.

Hrm. I may be confusing "religion" with "religious institutions". If you're saying that religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church) are a bad thing, you'll get no argument from me. But if you're talking about religions themselves (i.e.; the fundamental principles and practices of a faith), then we're still on the same page. I hope you don't mind if we continue to use Christianity as our example. It's the religion I've had the most experience with.

Same here then. I recommend The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. When it comes to the bad things of fundamental principles and practices. As it would get long and take too much time for me to do the work myself. BTW, I don't expect you to refute this. Pages and pages of interpretations is quite a bit of info.

The Christian community is very open about their source texts, allowing anyone with the resources to make their own translations and interpretations. Translations are done by multipartisan committees to prevent intentional or accidental errors. In my experience, they try to explain things as logically as possible. For these reasons, and my own experience of the community, I find them generally trustworthy--certainly as trustworthy as I find the Physics community, for example.

Well the Bible is written as fact all the stories have happened, this is what God says, etc. Some people may interpret differently, but the Bible is meant to be interpreted exactly like any science document. If not then basically anybody can pull any interpretation they want. Then they might as well try Buddhism, avoid all the doo-doo and go for the principles.

The problem is they try to explain everything logically but the explanation is in the Bible anything else would be adding to it without proof. For example: I think a lot of preachers use everyday life to explain things, the problem is that goes back to interpretation as I stated above.

People, after reading the documentation on Christianity, felt it could work. They felt it was a worthy risk. There was no faith involved, just trust in themselves. They followed through and... well? They took the risk, made the leap... did they find the God their scriptures said was there, or not? The socialists conducted their experiment, and did not find the utopia they reasoned would be there. The Christians conducted their experiment. Was their reasoning correct, or flawed?

Well according to the Bible people are sort of forced to believe and are told to force others. "You are either with God or against God." I remember reading somewhere in the Bible once. To me it seems more of a risk to go away from Christianity as I remember being very scared while losing faith. As I began to question I feared God was reading my mind and I would block out thoughts till one day it jumped in my head before I could force it back. "Something is wrong I shouldn't be scared to think." I believe that actually happened after reading 1984 for the first time.

That's why I see it as flawed the Bible does not encourage questioning because it works off unknowns and fear. When you do pick it apart you find the link I posted at the top.

With Quantum Physics, you have no choice but to trust the smarty-men with the expensive equipment. Unless you're one of them, you'll never be able to prove it for yourself. You'll just have to settle for other, less reliable methods of testing the truth of their claims.

The thing is these guys haven proven trustworthy in the past. Even when the make a mistake the whole word knows about it no matter how embarrassing. Most scientist will step up and say "oops, sorry." Except for greedy ones, but that a little different. So when they make claims that I will probably never understand or prove in my lifetime I'll believe them.

How about like this. If a man on the street says, "Hey man can I borrow $50? I'll pay you back in 1 hour. I promise I my mothers grave."
He won't see I dime from me and I hope not from you.
If my best friend who being the status of best friend and never gave me a reason to doubt him asked me the same question. "No problem, pay me back tomorrow or whenever."

So if one were to accept the strangers offer that would be faith. On the other hand from my friend that would be trust. The outcome could be the same way, but probability and reason says I'm gonna get my money back from my friend and from the stranger, well I will never see him or the money again.

Now, if these people really wanted to be serious about protecting our youth, they'd intentionally filter out much of the Bible. Obviously, there's some pretty obvious weird stuff going on in there, but what's even more interesting is that many euphemisms are used for more touchy subjects. One example is that in many instances in the Old Testament, "feet" is used euphemistically to mean "male genitals." One example is in Isaiah 7:20, which offers some interesting shaving tips. Another example is Ruth 3:14, but I'd recommend reading all of Ruth Chapter 3. It reads like a script to an ancient porno flick.

Imagine if we could use the tactics of the religious right and the censorship movement (they're by and large the same) against them... "Think of the children!"

Trusting businesses to maintain "Black hole" lists

Incidentally, I doubt some poor kid researching astronomy for his science class would be able to look up black holes, or "heavenly bodies" for that matter...

(Pardon my irreverence. I need a distraction tonight.)

Now, if these people really wanted to be serious about protecting our youth, they'd intentionally filter out much of the Bible. Obviously, there's some pretty obvious weird stuff going on in there, but what's even more interesting is that many euphemisms are used for more touchy subjects. One example is that in many instances in the Old Testament, "feet" is used euphemistically to mean "male genitals." One example is in Isaiah 7:20, which offers some interesting shaving tips. Another example is Ruth 3:14, but I'd recommend reading all of Ruth Chapter 3. It reads like a script to an ancient porno flick.

Imagine if we could use the tactics of the religious right and the censorship movement (they're by and large the same) against them... "Think of the children!"

Trusting businesses to maintain "Black hole" lists

Incidentally, I doubt some poor kid researching astronomy for his science class would be able to look up black holes, or "heavenly bodies" for that matter...

(Pardon my irreverence. I need a distraction tonight.)

Now, if these people really wanted to be serious about protecting our youth, they'd intentionally filter out much of the Bible. Obviously, there's some pretty obvious weird stuff going on in there, but what's even more interesting is that many euphemisms are used for more touchy subjects. One example is that in many instances in the Old Testament, "feet" is used euphemistically to mean "male genitals." One example is in Isaiah 7:20, which offers some interesting shaving tips. Another example is Ruth 3:14, but I'd recommend reading all of Ruth Chapter 3. It reads like a script to an ancient porno flick.

Imagine if we could use the tactics of the religious right and the censorship movement (they're by and large the same) against them... "Think of the children!"

Trusting businesses to maintain "Black hole" lists

Incidentally, I doubt some poor kid researching astronomy for his science class would be able to look up black holes, or "heavenly bodies" for that matter...

(Pardon my irreverence. I need a distraction tonight.)

Let's touch on your three points:

1 - internal consistency

If you accept the Bible as presented to you by an organized religious group, the Bible sounds very consistent. It's not. See the Skeptics Annotated Bible for a great way to see the contradictions side by side.

2 - consistent with other reliable works

Well, earlier you stated that there weren't any historical works that could be trusted as much as the Bible. So, if that's the case, how do you know those other works are correct?

Now, you're using archaeology as support for some of the Bible. Why is science acceptable when it supports the Bible, but not when it contradicts it?

Further, people and places in the New Testament can be pretty well matched with known history. But that doesn't mean all of the details are valid. Take "Gone With the Wind". Compared to all of the history of the Civil War era, it appears to be an accurate work. But the events described between Rhett and Scarlett never happened as written. So while we can be pretty sure that the people and places described in the New Testament are pretty accurate, the only corroboration of the details, such as miracles, are the accounts created by Christ's followers.

3 - relevance to you

If the Bible provides you comfort, guidance, etc., that's great. But it doesn't mean it has the answers for everyone, or that what is described in it must be taken at face value.

here's more to the Bible than "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Indeed. However, many followers _do_ take that attitude. And they are the people I had in mind in my original post. You can't have a rational debate about something when one side merely cites the Bible over and over.

challenge you to investigate the claims of Christ.

Which ones? The philosophical ones that we should treat others well? They aren't unique to Christianity. Or the claims that he is the 'Son of God', and performs miracles? The ones that are claimed, but aren't proven.

Use your mind, come at it as a skeptic and see what happens.

I have used my mind, and it's my skepticism that allows me to reject the Biblical mythology with no concerns. Being a skeptic requires that extraordinaly claims have extraordinary proof. Just as people today claim to have encounters with alien beings, people in the Middle Ages claimed to have contact with angels. The fact that miracles and other extraordinary events are written in the Bible does not provide proof that they happened.

Your mind is unlikely to be changed by the link above, or by another recommendation I'm about to make, but it sounds like you enjoy researching and discussing topics of this nature. Please read Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Okay, I know what all the heterosexual athiests out there are thinking right now: "I want to piss off this murderous, greedily and egotistically genocidal Yahweh dude, too, but I'm not gay! Do I have to have sex with other men?

Don't fret; there are still lots of easy (and even tasty!) ways to violate those Levitican laws. It's not as easy as it used to be, what with all the four legged birds mysteriously vanishing, but you can still:

Plant a garden full of different plants: this helps you eat healthy *and* annoy God! (Careful, though - the second year I tried it he sent a plague of aphids)

Cut your beard: getting a tattoo as well compounds the defiance!

Refuse to kill Miss Cleo: (on second thought, this time you might want to be obedient; just make sure you don't cuss while everyone's all excited and throwing stones)

Grill up some shrimp: This one's my personal favorite. I recommend sauteeing your abominations with a little butter, garlic, salt, and red pepper. Delicious!

Better to invent one story and stick to it. For some more information on the bible, try this.

I think you will find the reason the bible seems to be so familiar in terms of people and their actions is that it was written by, people.

Cool, I looked up that reference, and found it on Google in here. I am going to add this site to my list of favourites, it is something I have been wanting for years, as an ex-Christian.

well spank me for not checking my links

Why Abortion is Moral
http://elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html
Abort ion questions answered

Quick answer: A fetus does not develop a brain or a central nervous system until the 4th month of pregnancy! That means no consciousness, thought, feelings or anything! Before it's born, it's a potential person, not yet a conscious, independent person.


Why Abortion is Biblical
http://elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
How anti-abortion activists misrepresent the biblical record


The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html
300 bible contradictions explained...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contradict io ns.html

Why Abortion is Moral
http://elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html
Abort ion questions answered

Quick answer: A fetus does not develop a brain or a central nervous system until the 4th month of pregnancy! That means no consciousness, thought, feelings or anything! Before it's born, it's a potential person, not yet a conscious, independent person.


Why Abortion is Biblical
http://elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
How anti-abortion activists misrepresent the biblical record


The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html
300 bible contradictions explained...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contradict io ns.html

Sex has sold for years, since biblical times. Probably before that, too....

Caveman One: Unf Unga Boog Ooog Looga (Your girlfriend looks very alluring, I will pay you one million boar's teeth for one night with her)
Caveman Two: Onga Bonga Loo Fung Dunga Bunga (I cannot let you do that to the woman I love, However I will sell you rights to draw a figure of her on your wall, surrounded by advertisements and banners, and sell tickets to people to come view that picture

• The Secular Web set themselves up as a non-profit charity and collect on-line donations with PayPal, and they have banner ads and Amazon associations.
• The Skeptic's Dictionary uses those Amazon deals too.
• The Skeptic's Annotated Bible sells TShirts, CDROMS, books, etc as a way of funding their website.

Those are about all the non-corporate websites or non-corporate-sponsored websites I visit.

Maybe you should visit these and other sites and just ask... "Hey... how do you afford all this?" Never hurts to ask.

Ryan T. Sammartino

Read in the original languges too. While our knowledge of ancient Aramic is obviously not perfect, there is considerable schollarly opinion that Ex. 22:18 would be better translated as 'Thou shalt not Suffer a poisoner to live'. (Reposted due to accidentally hiting the anonymous coward button)

>That's how it maintains is timelessness and how it can apply to each human being who has accepted it's teachings. Frankly, it's absolute genius > >from start to finish.

Does that include the hard core pornography in the Song of Solomon? (Read all of it again if you don't believe me) Or Gods rather bipolar behavior during the 40 Years Exile in the desert? Or PI being equal to 3? (I Kings 7:23, as it describes Solomons altar.) Don't believe me? Look it all up again. I suggest you try reading the Skeptics Anotated Bible sometime. I would be very hard pressed to call the Bible "absolute genius" from start to finish. It is critically flawed in many places, but at least you're willing to admit that the Bible was INTENDED to be read and interperated as a metephorical document. A LOT of people would nail you to the wall for that.

The Bible, at it's basest moral core, doesn't really say anything new that other groups don't already say. Stripped of it's "religion-specific" aspects, the Ten Commandments are no different from most other religions. It's just that Christianity is relatively unique in its "My Way, or the Long, Painful Highway Of Eternal Damnation, so nyah nyah nyah!" approach. I just have real problems with the whole "One Truth Faith" thing. I think it's petty and childish to think that God is so unenlightened, he can't figure out that the punishment should fit the crime. Sorry, I don't care what you think, but even Hitler himself doesn't deserve to burn in Hell _forever_. There has to be justice sooner or later, even if that justice is just Death.

Wow...really went off on a tangent there...sorry.

>I personally think there is plenty of room in Genesis 1 to accomodate evolution and you should >read it again to see for yourself.

Ooookay. Just read it again. Gen 1:1 to 2:3 seems to contradict each other. Did Man come before the animals? Or did the animals come first. According to Genesis, both! It's hard to draw metephorical inferences from that.

>That is the same exact things evolutionists have done. They have assumed what the big picture looks like and when any new data comes along, the parts of the picture are rearranged to look as >close as possible to that big picture.

Well no..not exactly. What you fail to realize is the difference between Science and Faith. Creation "Science" takes facts, and attempts to twist and distort them to fit an Immutible Big Picture That Cannot Ever Change. Science finds new things, and if the new things are strong enough, the Big Picture O' Science can and has in the past been completely and utterly changed.

For instance, take whats happened in the last few hundred years. People used to believe that the World was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that all the planets and moons were perfectly smoothe, that diseaes were caused by demons, and that Classical Physics could describe all physical phenomena in the world, etc etc. Compare the Scientific "Big Picture O' The World" back in 1700 with the "Big Picture" today, and you'll find two VERY VERY different things. Biblical Creation hasn't changed at all during that time. And there is the big difference. Science thrives on doubt and change. Religion abhors these things. Someone on this forum said it best: You don't win a Nobel Prize for reinforcing the status quo.

>Both schools of thought are faith based, as a >result.

Well, to a certain extent, perhaps, except that the folks who espouse Literal Biblical Creation can't really put a good argument together to save their lives. They resorted to faking computer models, disortion of many scientific facts, and propeganda. (Have you read some of those Chick Tracts? Jack T. seriously needs to deal with some projection issues.) Creation "Scientists" will _always_ be slaves to their Bible. A GOOD Scientist wont be a slave to the status quo. Even *I* will admit, however, that some scientists get zealous to the point where it becomes like a religion for them as well. These people usually go the way of the dinosar, sooner or later. Even Albert Einstein had problems beliving in Quantum Mechanics.

So frankly, no...I think in this case, Biblical Creationism and Evolution are like oil and water. Now...as I said before...Intelligent Design...THAT I can believe. God as the Ultimate Scientist....makes sense to me. God as a freaky Bipolor guy who gets off on making perfectly good and decent people suffer FOREVER...I just could never ever have that kind of faith, and if that condemns me to Hell, then I guess thats my Karma. So much for the illusion of Free Will.

Oh really? And This (Gen 3:16) means nothing? That is when he was given control over her.

In other words, Adam said "Bitch set me up.", like Marion Berry, and God punished Eve by putting her in the "kitchen"

Then again, I find the story to be a tale of ignoring god once wisdom is gained, since all he wanted to do was subjugate man as his little naked pets.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com