Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

sojourner · Aug 8, 2012

Jayhawker Soule said:
My guess is that it was the result of Hellenization and a focus on the diaspora.

Bingo!

1robin · Aug 8, 2012

sojourner said:
Several imminent theologians disagree with you.

Hey, I had mentioned that you had suggested that Thomas was the most credible or reliable of the lost Gospels. Was this correct or is there another one that is more so? We were decideing which one to discuss.

sojourner · Aug 8, 2012

Shermana said:
I would say Matthew says the exact opposite and fully is saying that the party is the same original Israelite party, perhaps you can provide some examples of quotes that show Matthew saying its a new party. Are you referring to the great commission? All it says is to make "Disciples" of all nations. The key word is to "Make Disciples", which means "Make them believe like we do". And that would be a Torah obedient sect that simply doesn't follow it like the Pharisees. There's nothing to interpret it as being anything but bringing people to be members of this Jewish separatist sect. Matthew is called the most Jewish gospel for a reason, you have to deliberately look at it as something other than what it is most known as in order to get your conclusion,.

Yah, except that's not how the Greek has it.

And I'm not referring to the Great Commission.

Matthew is Jewish, because that's what Matthew was -- and that's Matthew's audience -- Jews living in the Diaspora.
He stresses obedience to the Law, yes, but not in the same way the Jewish power base has been plying it. That's why he stresses that the ax is laid at the root of the tree.

Matthew is all about placing the kingdom of God within the true believer -- not the "first son." The true believer transcends old political and religious boundaries.

sojourner · Aug 8, 2012

Jayhawker Soule said:
No, I think nascent Christianity was a shift away from a corporate theology and messianic hope and toward the struggle for personal grace with just reward deferred to the afterlife.

I disagree. Nascent Xy was highly communal, both in terms of theology and socialization.

1robin · Aug 8, 2012

waitasec said:
faith in god does nothing to separate one person from another jesus' sword cannot separate our humanity...
as there is nothing a believer can do that a non believer can't
like it or not, we are all in the same boat....it's called planet earth.

You have invented a convenient and very vague criteria for what seperation means. If you can't see how one group of people will not be seperated from another by the fact that one tries to follow Christ and the other Follows (much of the time without knowledge) Satan, I don't think I can help. I have no idea what your version of seperation even means but it definately isn't biblical. I have noticed this within my family but have tried to not let it go too far.

i believe ethics exist.

That falls way short of whatever a non-theist Christian should mean. Your more humanist than anything IMO.

careful, your inclination towards hubris is showing

Nothing I said can't be found in a thousand theological books.

by all means i cannot wait to see...

I will have to find time so I can allow for your counter claims maybe about 3:30pm. Everything slows down then.

a joke which incites...or am i wrong?

If I had identified or suggested a target which I was careful not to do then maybe. Everything is not directed at you. Miss woe is me.

for anyone to say (mostly) requires knowledge of everyone...
you cannot possible know everyone.

Only if I made an empirical implication. I was saying somethiong obsurd for apparently my own benifit. Are you a sarcasm masochist? Is that even a real thing? I did not mean you when I said that (mostly), I never even thought it. I have even gone out of my way when I think missunderstanding possible, in order to clarify what I meant by "you" or whatever. This wasn't one of those times.

I r Baboon · Aug 8, 2012

1robin said:
Good Lord. You can add up all the crusades, witch trials, and inquisitions together and it will be less than 10 percent of what the atheistic stalin did alone. Of course that is 10% too many but it isn't even in the same relm of what just the modern atheists have done.

1. No act contrary to the bible can be blamed on God or the religion.
2. It is a judgement on those people alone.
3. If you wish to actually sincerely evaluate a teaching then it is infinately more reasonable to study it's adherents not it's rebels and violators.
4. The indians of which I am one were not wiped out for religious reasons. It was 99% greed. Neither were the Aztecs or Incas. Any casual understanding of history will show that.
5. Hitler actually used eveolution to justify his actions. I am aware that Hitler had a superficial connection to Catholicism in an effort to control the church but that was abandoned early when they refused to cooperate at least in general. The subjegation of one race and the assertion of superiority of another has much more in common with a book that is titled: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Than with the bible which gives the only valid foundation for the equality of man or used to give the only foundation suffecient for inalienable rights.
6. The actions of the atheistic tyrants is not opposed by anything found within atheism. The actions of theological tyrants is opposed by teachings found in the bible.

I had more to add to my original answer to this. This claim you made is such a collosal fail it is a wonder it is still used by bible critics.

Your first assertion assumes that what the people did during the crusades, inquisition and and witch trials was contrary to the bible. The religious individuals who participated in these events did so with the intent of saving the souls of their victims and spreading the righteousness of their god according to their interpretations of biblical passages. These atrocities happened because these men reasoned, through their own particular interpretation of biblical verse, that they were helping their victims. Who are you to claim that their actions are in direct violation of the bible. As this thread has already stated the translation from the original languages can be tricky and there are more than a few different perspectives on how biblical verse should interpreted. You are saying that these people acted contrary to the bible only because they acted contrary to your current socially accepted view of biblical verse. Your assertion is dismissive and arrogant. Is your word now infallible? I'm sure most of those who took part in these actions would vehemently argue the purity of their motivations. So yes, Christianity is absolutely responsible for these crimes of humanity--and the inferred telescopic nature of your assertion only serves to undermine the integrity of the position you argue from.

Shermana · Aug 8, 2012

sojourner said:
Yah, except that's not how the Greek has it.

And I'm not referring to the Great Commission.

Matthew is Jewish, because that's what Matthew was -- and that's Matthew's audience -- Jews living in the Diaspora.
He stresses obedience to the Law, yes, but not in the same way the Jewish power base has been plying it. That's why he stresses that the ax is laid at the root of the tree.

Matthew is all about placing the kingdom of God within the true believer -- not the "first son." The true believer transcends old political and religious boundaries.

How is the Greek in question here? What specifically is the word/phrase that you think I'm translating incorrectly? Matthew is all about obedience to the Laws of Moses. Your attempt to generalize it is fine, because it has parts of it right, but it's as if you're brushing aside the blatant fact which most if not all scholars agree on, that Matthew is extremely Jewish. There's a reason the audience is Jewish. When you write something to a specific audience, it's because you are writing things that apply to them. Are you saying that Matthew changed the context of the Gospel to placate the Jews who he was writing to? Does the Theology and conveyed objectives of the details change because of the fact it was written to Jews? Or could part of the Theology and objective be derived from the fact that it's written to Jews in the first place?

Yes, the issue is about how the Law is being misinterpreted and misapplied by the Pharisees, this is commonly confused by many "Christians" as opposition to the Law altogether. The text has Jesus "rescuing" the Law from the Pharisees and their unscriptural rules like ritualized handwashing, not dissolving it. Matthew is very much a Torah-reactionary piece of literature, it's not Universalist at all, it's only Universalist in inviting everyone to the same party, if it's a New Party, it's clearly based on the Old Party's guidelines if not more strict than before. Every "iota" of the "Old" Law is part of the New. The very basis of the New Covenant is described in Jeremiah to begin with which is basically saying its a reissuing of the Old Law in a new form.

The "True believer" is someone who believes what Jesus taught in this context, and that's total obedience to the Law apart from Pharisee decrees. Basically what the Nazxarenes and Essense were living like before that.

I r Baboon · Aug 8, 2012

:"Stalin was an athiest way before he was a political figure. If you are unfortunate enough to read Marx then you should have known that atheism was a sincere core belief and drove his political ideology not the other way around". --1Robin
--
Marx overtly rejected religion in his socioeconomic philosophy because in his time and location(s) the church was inextricably coupled with the state. In Lenin's case the Czar was seen as divinely appointed to his position and thus the church was held accountable, along with the governing political institution, for the oppression of the masses. It was the willful actions of the church in combining its divine message with political authority that caused Marx to deny the whole of religion completely. In Marx's viewpoint God was just a tool of the ruling class to pacify and subvert the masses. Obviously his blanket view on religion was severely truncated and examples like the liberation theology of successful revolutions in countries like Nicaragua counter his assertion that religion is only good for oppression. But to comment that to read Marx is "unfortunate" is ignorant and unpalatable.

Jayhawker Soule · Aug 8, 2012

sojourner said:
Jayhawker Soule said:

... I think nascent Christianity was a shift away from a corporate theology and messianic hope and toward the struggle for personal grace with just reward deferred to the afterlife.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Nascent Xy was highly communal, both in terms of theology and socialization.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.

1robin · Aug 8, 2012

I r Baboon said:
Your first assertion assumes that what the people did during the crusades, inquisition and and witch trials was contrary to the bible. The religious individuals who participated in these events did so with the intent of saving the souls of their victims and spreading the righteousness of their god according to their interpretations of biblical passages.

So what? If I go kill everyone in Zambia and say it is because I believe Baboon wanted me to will you accept the blame for what I did. Their actions were contrary to the simple "Thou shal not murder" of the bible and so God is not responsible nor the bible.

These atrocities happened because these men reasoned, through their own particular interpretation of biblical verse, that they were helping their victims.

No they were not. The Conquest - Gold, United states - Land and freedom from oppression, Crusades - revenge, land, power, and freedom from Turkish highway men, Inquisition - Punishment, Racism, fear, and power.

Who are you to claim that their actions are in direct violation of the bible.

For the love. It isn't hard to suggest murder is against a book that says do not murder. I am a 25yr biblical researcher and a 30 plus year amateur historians with 190 sem hours. Plus I have some common sence which is all that is necessary.

As this thread has already stated the translation from the original languages can be tricky and there are more than a few different perspectives on how biblical verse should interpreted.

That is why I use the original Kione Greek whenever necessary. In the computer age it is a peice of cake. Kione Greek is the most descriptive language in human history and leaves little doubt what was meant.

You are saying that these people acted contrary to the bible only because they acted contrary to your current socially accepted view of biblical verse.

I have seen all sides but this is the first time someone has defended the worst atrocities in Christian history. Live and learn I guess, it takes all kinds.

Your assertion is dismissive and arrogant

Well then how much worse defending muder on an industrial scale must be.

Is your word now infallible?

Doesn't seed to be to know right from wrong in such obvious examples.

I'm sure most of those who took part in these actions would vehemently argue the purity of their motivations.

Since most of them were not born again Christians especially in the crusades which turned into canabals on at least one occasion I imagine they would dissagree. They are still claiming the book that says to turn the other cheek justifies murdering women and Children many who have already surrendered. You don't know much about history do you.

So yes, Christianity is absolutely responsible for these crimes of humanity--and the inferred telescopic nature of your assertion only serves to undermine the integrity of the position you argue from.

The actions I condemn were never performed by Christ himself, in fact his life is about the antithesis of most of these peoples lives and actions I reject your strange stance.

Why are their action any better than the Jim Jones's or the catch the comet folks.

Why don't you pick your favorite and we will get into specific actions and the people involved?

I can't think of any governing dynamic that would produce claims so bizarre. Wait a minute are you Catholic?

sojourner · Aug 8, 2012

1robin said:
Hey, I had mentioned that you had suggested that Thomas was the most credible or reliable of the lost Gospels. Was this correct or is there another one that is more so? We were decideing which one to discuss.

I think so, but that may be because it's the one I've spent the most time with.

1robin · Aug 8, 2012

sojourner said:
I think so, but that may be because it's the one I've spent the most time with.

Good enough. Waitasec was wondering why I chose that one even though I said you said it was the most reliable. She is always suspicious of me. Is that a Katana in your avatar?

sojourner · Aug 8, 2012

Shermana said:
How is the Greek in question here? What specifically is the word/phrase that you think I'm translating incorrectly? Matthew is all about obedience to the Laws of Moses. Your attempt to generalize it is fine, because it has parts of it right, but it's as if you're brushing aside the blatant fact which most if not all scholars agree on, that Matthew is extremely Jewish. There's a reason the audience is Jewish. When you write something to a specific audience, it's because you are writing things that apply to them. Are you saying that Matthew changed the context of the Gospel to placate the Jews who he was writing to? Does the Theology and conveyed objectives of the details change because of the fact it was written to Jews? Or could part of the Theology and objective be derived from the fact that it's written to Jews in the first place?

Yes, the issue is about how the Law is being misinterpreted and misapplied by the Pharisees, this is commonly confused by many "Christians" as opposition to the Law altogether. The text has Jesus "rescuing" the Law from the Pharisees and their unscriptural rules like ritualized handwashing, not dissolving it. Matthew is very much a Torah-reactionary piece of literature, it's not Universalist at all, it's only Universalist in inviting everyone to the same party, if it's a New Party, it's clearly based on the Old Party's guidelines if not more strict than before. Every "iota" of the "Old" Law is part of the New. The very basis of the New Covenant is described in Jeremiah to begin with which is basically saying its a reissuing of the Old Law in a new form.

The "True believer" is someone who believes what Jesus taught in this context, and that's total obedience to the Law apart from Pharisee decrees. Basically what the Nazxarenes and Essense were living like before that.

You're reading waaaaaaay too much into what I'm saying. If you'd stand back a little, you'd see that I agree with a lot of what you're saying here.

the Greek literally says, "Go and make 'us' out of 'them.'" In other words, Jesus is saying that the division between "who's a true Jew" and "who's everyone else" is not so rigid as they've been led to believe. The commission erases the (false) line between "us" and "them." There is no real "us/them."

Matthew structures his gospel around 5 sermons. The first sermon pairs theologically with the last one, the middle two pair together, and all four point toward the pivotal sermon in the middle. For Matthew, the whole "secret" of the gospel is that "differences don't really matter." You let the wheat grow up with the tares. For Matthew, there's both good and bad in the church, and it's not always real easy to tell which is which. So we erase the distinctions and let God take care of it.

That's why I say that Matthew's Jesus is very universal. At the end of the gospel, Jesus is even wanting his disciples to erase the distinction between "Jew" and "others," because the true Israel may involve people from all groups -- so long as they keep the true commandments.

Yes, Matthew is extremely Jewish. I never said he wasn't.

waitasec · Aug 8, 2012

1robin said:
You have invented a convenient and very vague criteria for what seperation means. If you can't see how one group of people will not be seperated from another by the fact that one tries to follow Christ and the other Follows (much of the time without knowledge) Satan, I don't think I can help. I have no idea what your version of seperation even means but it definately isn't biblical. I have noticed this within my family but have tried to not let it go too far.

i don't follow satan.
satan, from a christian POV, implies 2 things...
1. i am evil, wicked and lost in the dark
2. i have been deceived

so which one is it robin?

That falls way short of whatever a non-theist Christian should mean. Your more humanist than anything IMO.

i don't know if i agree can you define for me
what a humanist is in your opinion.

if any of your definitions include
1. i am evil, wicked and lost in the dark
2. i have been deceived
you would also have to concede to the idea that
i am sub human and inferior in comparison to you, who is
of course...ahem...saved....
saved from what exactly...remains unclear.

Nothing I said can't be found in a thousand theological books.

what?

If I had identified or suggested a target which I was careful not to do then maybe. Everything is not directed at you. Miss woe is me.

were you not talking about people in general....
so exactly what sort of person is not human?
one who is
1. evil, wicked and lost in the dark
2. has been deceived

Only if I made an empirical implication. I was saying somethiong obsurd for apparently my own benifit. Are you a sarcasm masochist? Is that even a real thing? I did not mean you when I said that (mostly), I never even thought it. I have even gone out of my way when I think missunderstanding possible, in order to clarify what I meant by "you" or whatever. This wasn't one of those times.

so what did you imply when you said (mostly), non believers?
are non believers sub human? are non believers inferior to believers?
because
1. they are evil, wicked and lost in the dark
2. they are deceived

1robin · Aug 8, 2012

waitasec said:
i don't follow satan.
satan, from a christian POV, implies 2 things...
1. i am evil, wicked and lost in the dark
2. i have been deceived

so which one is it robin?

It wasn't my claim. However number 2 seems likely and biblically consistent. My opinion even if very important to you now will not be so in the long run. What God said is what matters. There are born again Christians and there are non believers according to the bible.

i don't know if i agree can you define for me
what a humanist is in your opinion.

It is a position that smuggles in Christian morality and ethics but denies their divine source. That is probably not the best definition but servicable.

if any of your definitions include
1. i am evil, wicked and lost in the dark
2. i have been deceived
you would also have to concede to the idea that
i am sub human and inferior in comparison to you, who is
of course...ahem...saved....
saved from what exactly...remains unclear.

There are about 7 half points in there all smashed up together and written through an emotional lens. Clarify and seperate and I will try to answer what the BIBLE's position is on them.

what?

I don't remember.

were you not talking about people in general....
so exactly what sort of person is not human?
one who is
1. evil, wicked and lost in the dark
2. has been deceived

Your like a dog with a bone. No one, I was joking and did not insinuate anything about you anyway. Before you send the lawyers - not a literal dog or bone and it was a joke and I am a monkeys uncle.

so what did you imply when you said (mostly), non believers?
are non believers sub human? are non believers inferior to believers?
because

You are the only one who keeps linking a hypothetical mostly with believers and non-believers you are more guilty than me.

waitasec · Aug 8, 2012

1robin said:
It wasn't my claim. However number 2 seems likely and biblically consistent. My opinion even if very important to you now will not be so in the long run. What God said is what matters. There are born again Christians and there are non believers according to the bible.

can you understand how insulting that is?

It is a position that smuggles in Christian morality and ethics but denies their divine source. That is probably not the best definition but servicable.

you lost me.
christian morality?

There are about 7 half points in there all smashed up together and written through an emotional lens. Clarify and seperate and I will try to answer what the BIBLE's position is on them.

excuse me for reacting that way...i'm not used to being insulted in the manner you insult

Your like a dog with a bone. No one, I was joking and did not insinuate anything about you anyway. Before you send the lawyers - not a literal dog or bone and it was a joke and I am a monkeys uncle.

You are the only one who keeps linking a hypothetical mostly with believers and non-believers you are more guilty than me.

if you bring yourself to understand that you are insulting by implying people are being deceived, then maybe you can understand that anything else you say is taken with a truck load of salt.

1robin · Aug 8, 2012

waitasec said:
can you understand how insulting that is?

Not really. I do not care what the Quran or any other book I do not believe in says about me. I have a loyalty to the truth and I am fairly obedient in that regard. If the bible says it I usually do. If you are offended then it is with God. I did not make the rules.

you lost me.
christian morality?

Yes, Ravi Zacharias or Denesh Disouza gave many easy to find seminars on this but I don't have the time it deserves. For example the concept of Compassion does not exist in any ancient Greek list of virtues.

excuse me for reacting that way...i'm not used to being insulted in the manner you insult

You assume and attribute wrongly to me that majority of all insults you feel.

if you bring yourself to understand that you are insulting by implying people are being deceived, then maybe you can understand that anything else you say is taken with a truck load of salt.

I am more loyal to truth than political correctness and I stand behind what I said the bible said. If you have a gentler way of putting it I would consider it. The bible on the other hand is brutally specific on the subject.

waitasec · Aug 8, 2012

1robin said:
Not really. I do not care what the Quran or any other book I do not believe in says about me. I have a loyalty to the truth and I am fairly obedient in that regard. If the bible says it I usually do. If you are offended then it is with God. I did not make the rules.

Yes, Ravi Zacharias or Denesh Disouza gave many easy to find seminars on this but I don't have the time it deserves. For example the concept of Compassion does not exist in any ancient Greek list of virtues.

You assume and attribute wrongly to me that majority of all insults you feel.

I am more loyal to truth than political correctness and I stand behind what I said the bible said. If you have a gentler way of putting it I would consider it. The bible on the other hand is brutally specific on the subject.

oh really,
yet you are to consider me to be better than you?

there is a huge disconnect here.

I r Baboon · Aug 8, 2012

1robin said:
So what? If I go kill everyone in Zambia and say it is because I believe Baboon wanted me to will you accept the blame for what I did. Their actions were contrary to the simple "Thou shal not murder" of the bible and so God is not responsible nor the bible.

No they were not. The Conquest - Gold, United states - Land and freedom from oppression, Crusades - revenge, land, power, and freedom from Turkish highway men, Inquisition - Punishment, Racism, fear, and power.

For the love. It isn't hard to suggest murder is against a book that says do not murder. I am a 25yr biblical researcher and a 30 plus year amateur historians with 190 sem hours. Plus I have some common sence which is all that is necessary.

That is why I use the original Kione Greek whenever necessary. In the computer age it is a peice of cake. Kione Greek is the most descriptive language in human history and leaves little doubt what was meant.

I have seen all sides but this is the first time someone has defended the worst atrocities in Christian history. Live and learn I guess, it takes all kinds.

Well then how much worse defending muder on an industrial scale must be.

Doesn't seed to be to know right from wrong in such obvious examples.

Since most of them were not born again Christians especially in the crusades which turned into canabals on at least one occasion I imagine they would dissagree. They are still claiming the book that says to turn the other cheek justifies murdering women and Children many who have already surrendered. You don't know much about history do you.

The actions I condemn were never performed by Christ himself, in fact his life is about the antithesis of most of these peoples lives and actions I reject your strange stance.

Why are their action any better than the Jim Jones's or the catch the comet folks.

Why don't you pick your favorite and we will get into specific actions and the people involved?

I can't think of any governing dynamic that would produce claims so bizarre. Wait a minute are you Catholic?

Really? Seriously? If you read my post and interpreted that I was condoning the brutality of Christians throughout history then your analytical reading abilities are sorely lacking. But I did enjoy the laugh. If you have trouble extrapolating the overt message from my short post I must seriously question your ability to accurately digest and formulate any sort of coherent message from the holy texts you read. Or maybe you just like strawmen? I get it bud, they're easy...but you gotta try a little harder.

Nobody could use Baboon as a source for massacres like they do the bible because Baboon does not write ambiguous contradictory rhetoric like that found in the christian holy bible. Get ready for a reiteration of just how not loving the bible is...Im sure you have heard this all before but obviously i must take awhile for it to sink in. Murder in the bible:

You should not let a sorceress live. Exodus 22:17

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. Leviticus 20:9

**Killing those of other religions:

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. Exodus 22:19

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." Deuteronomy 13:13-19

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. Deuteronomy 18:20-22

**More killing!...I mean loving?

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. Isaiah 13:15-18

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and *****.' 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. Jeremiah 48:10

I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. Ezekiel 35:7-9

The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites, putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon. Moreover they destroyed by fire all the cities they came upon. Judges 20:48

Bro you can't even begin to call this loving and you cannot even begin to tell me that the atrocities committed in the name of christianity are not backed by your holy book. Really? No but Stalin killed everyone out of a commitment to no god right? He did everything in the name of no god? Please. You cite politics for christian atrocities and then cite some ridiculous notion that atheist politics are guilty of atrocities committed in the name of no god. Try again. Do you need more examples? I can fill the next page with them. The bible may relate tenets of love and compassion but it also espouses endless amounts of intolerance and bloodshed. That is the problem with books filled with contradictory statements, you can do anything you want and justify it.

BTW this was my favorite line:
"I can't think of any governing dynamic that would produce claims so bizarre. Wait a minute are you Catholic?"

Is this some inter-christian slight or something? Do you view Catholics as murderous non-Christians? Do you Christians have some sort of hierarchy with a gradient of varying degrees of "Christness" and Catholics are at the bottom? But I got it, yours is the pious and true path right? Sure bud.

waitasec · Aug 8, 2012

sojourner said:
Nope. Because he challenged the status quo.

then why did jesus not go to the augures and the collegium pontificum and perform miracles for them too?

Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Christian/Baptist

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Christian/Baptist

Egalitarian Epicureanist

Heretic

Egalitarian Epicureanist

-- untitled --

Christian/Baptist

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Christian/Baptist

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Veteran Member

Christian/Baptist

Veteran Member

Christian/Baptist

Veteran Member

Egalitarian Epicureanist

Veteran Member