Search results

You are entirely wrong, but I've already corrected you. Like I explained, they are self-consciously intended as historical narratives. They were never viewed as imparting allegorical wisdom. They have been, since they were written in the 7th century BC, viewed as historically true; people...

Yes, and the parts that are supposed to be historical have little to no factual basis (wanderings of the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquests of Joshua, the kingdom of Solomon/David, etc) in the slightest, and the parts that are apparently 'wisdom texts' have the same amount of wisdom that we...

No, this is not true. Firstly, they are, and have been entirely intended to be taken seriously in some form from the 7th century until the 17th century. What happened was that as scientific advancement and the scientific method progressed, it was discovered that a great deal of things said in...

The problem is that the Bible itself clearly takes itself seriously. The exodus, the conquests of Joshua, the kingdom of David; it's all meant to be taken entirely seriously. While your history of biblical interpretation is not correct (for examples the overwhelming theory within Biblical...

Don't be sorry, I lol'd hard. :)

This thread has become more epic and productive than it ever was before.

Thanks heaps for that! I will definitely pass it on and send a message.

Jesus taught that everyone is a wretched, sinning creature, created that way by God and that one must feel bad for the way that you were created by your loving master or fear the fires of death. Not only that, but this very same God had facilitated the bloody ethnic cleansing, butchery and...

Disagreement with religion is not prejudice. I am, in fact, more tolerant of homosexuality, of culture, of race and of other religions than you are, all because of the fact that I look at the facts objectively and draw from them what I can.

Please google search "define:bigoted", then give your own world-view a good hard look before throwing such idiocy around.

Far more so than you, as we've already established.

Yes we did; your excuses were pitiful and your knowledge even more so. We established that for your claim that religious doctrines don't promote evil deeds to be true, you must edit your definition of evil deeds such that it does not include propagation of slavery, genocide, religious...

In saying so, you must recognise that being nice, tolerant, accepting people goes entirely against their religion in most aspects, so they act that way because that is the kind of person they are, and that has shit all to do with the religion that they follow. They act that way because of an...

Oh don't go there, please, we've been over this. Don't equate morality and religion, please. I've discussed this with you before and clearly disproved your points.

Disgusting hypocrisy from religious organisations flying in the face of logical or rational inquiry? No-one should be at all surprised but everyone should be appalled.

He fucked up so bad that, if you are to listen to the Bible, he had to kill everyone and everything on the entire fucking world minus like, 8 people and some animals. The main point is that in order to get some sort of consistent and respectable ethic from Christianity one must ignore large...

Yes, in the face of utter ignorance. Of course we benefit from the order imposed on society. Humanity needs society to survive because it is biologically incapable of sustaining solitary existence. Complex society relies on the social bonds formed within a social group for its very existence...

These are not accusations, these are historical and archaeological facts, but I'm going to assume that what you were referring to as accusations was this: The Old Testament is a vague collection of nationalistic scribblings by separate tribes and cultures, which ranges from pseudo-historical to...

Well a half-decent knowledge of the English language helps ...

Thanks dude. :)