bopot

I've never asked one, but I think I get your point. Still, whatever equivocation they might engage in, it would at least address the question directly, rather than simply and conveniently "amending" it with some new text.

Cesc

Well, I didnt say that the entire Bible has one encompassing theme, only Christianity (NT). But still it was a bad choice of words on my behalf. I agree with you that the idea of all of us being bad bad sinners is sick. Nobody's gonna tell me I was born a sinner worthy of burning in hell!

What I meant was the whole "eye for eye vs. turn the other cheek" reform. "Love your neighbor", "forgive them for they know not what they do" and we are all Gods people incl. slaves and outcasts, and that sort of stuff. If I were a Christian thats what I would choose to focus on, and most of the Christians I've met do. But I live in Denmark and we dont really have fundies, though Xtianity is a little bit on the rise now (prolly as a result of the anti-muslim sentiment brewing under the surface, it seems to me).

But if one wants to be rational and academic about it, sure, there are many things in Christianity that are absolutely horrible such as the Christian concept of hell, as has been pointed out. But believers do not want to be rational and academic about it, hence "believers"

Roland also points out the human sacrifice element. In order that we be saved, someone else has to suffer horribly to his death!

Joan of Bark

You could also point out that Jesus was only preaching to his fellow Jews; he says as much in Matthew 15:24 (NIV):

Also Matthew 10:34 ...

mountainman

The evidence on the table of ancient history is the following:

1) Constantine publishes the new testament in the fourth century.
2) Eusebius published "christian history" in the fourth century.

The assertions of the historical truth contained in the Eusebian history have never been formally rejected. In fact, they are consciously or unconsciously embraced at the foundational (postulate) level of most peoples' beliefs as being in some sense "true". How could we disbelieve Eusebius? Where is the C14?

#1 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years),
#2 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years),
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9


Best wishes,


Pete

Civil1z@tion

The same damn thing.

Christians and Jews alike seem to enjoy picking the laws they like and trashing the rest. I say fine, go ahead and do that but don't say you're following the bible. You've made up your own religion by mixing modern values with a few bronze age laws. That fine with me, but I'd prefer you were honest and didn't try to say you were Christian/Jewish (or Muslim in the case of cerry-picking from the Koran). That just links you to the crazy wackos who wanted to stone gays and encourage slavery. Oh but wait, its harder to sell a religion to others that doesn't have thousands of years of existence to give it "credibility." Too damn bad. It ain't honest to say you follow the Bible and to ignore large parts of it.

Roland

The most flagrant example of Christians ignoring Biblical law comes from the NEW Testament actually, Jesus' clearly-stated prohibition against divorce and remarriage. How many "Bible-believing, God-fearing" Christians, do you imagine, have violated that provision, and how many of the churches they attend have given them a free-pass on doing so?

Since such violators are referred to as "adulterers" by no-less a person than Jesus himself, shouldn't churches be encouraging the dissolutions of those marriages, or, at the very least, counseling these people to live celibate lives within the context of that marriage? Yet, churches would never do that since such an action would result in near-empty pews - and, by extension, near-empty collection plates - on Sunday mornings.

bopot

Good point.

Aside from the hypocrisy, the religious taboo/prohibition of divorce is simply reprehensible to begin with, because it demands that people stay in a miserable relationship or risk offending God. The same God who is all-loving and presumably wants us to be happy.

bopot

Goldmine.

storytime

When reading the bible story, you might want to cherry pick as the christians do. Suggest that they explain why Jesus excluded Gentiles. When Jesus said, "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the House of Israel", ask them to explain Jesus also saying "it is not meant that the "childrens" bread be given to dogs."

You might also want to ask Christians why Jesus deceived the multitude in parables while speaking plainly to his disciples. (the "mysteries" of the kingdom were given to disciples and not the multitude)

Then if that isn't enough, ask the Christians why God hated Esau and loved only Jacob. Esau was "Edomites" and not a people of Israel. So God hated Esau and loved the people of Israel - Jacob/sons.

Then there is the Egyptians who were not a people of God, as God told Moses "I have made a difference between thee and the Egyptians". The Egyptians were out.

Then there is the sons of Abraham by Kenturah, after Sarah died. These were not claimed as "children" of God either. So ask the Christians why they think they are somehow special, for certainly they are not "the chosen people".

Then you might want to challenge the Christian idea of resurrection and refer them to the verse in Matthew 11:5 where it says: "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, THE DEAD ARE RAISED UP, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

Now, if Jesus raised the dead while he was yet alive, doesn't this present a problem for Christians?

bopot

Good stuff, thanks, I'll add those to my collection.