If Christians Told The Truth About The Bible

love it!!!

It’s so true. Most Christians are either too stupid to read and understand their own book or they don’t care that their god is a psychotic, murderous, raging loony.  

this is mistranslation of aramaic or hebrew. when it says “rape” it should read “to seduce and have sex with” a virgin you must marry her… there are several mistranslations in the english bible. This scripture is speaking to the Isrealites, It was very important for women to be virgins until marriage so this is a rule for taking a woman’s virginity, kinda like you break it, you buy it.

I am agnostic first of all. But my parents are devout Chirstians and I was of course brought up in the mind-programming state haha. The only misconception is that this is from the Old Testament most Christians at least in my understanding focus more towards the New Testament and the coming of Jesus Christ as their savior. Maybe I am totally misinformed wouldn’t be the first and sure as hell won’t be the last.

Truth right there!!

Truth right there!!

Well, to be fair, Deuteronomy is Old Testament, but ironically enough, Christians always loved that book more.

Well, to be fair, Deuteronomy is Old Testament, but ironically enough, Christians always loved that book more.

It can’t be. Exodus 22:16-17 covers seduction and uses the word. The passage on the billboard is correct.

don’t lie. if a perfect 10 virgin is willing to go home w/ u, u won’t say no:P

You’re right. Christianity is the new covenant, and the legal and ceremonial portions of Old Testament Judaism are covered by Christ/moot to Christians. This applies to all denominations.

I guess it’s a little harder to get away with titling the article: “If Jews Told The Truth About The Torah.”

Christians in the US especially.

Oh good. That’s exactly what I want.

check the Website Evilbible .com

and he lied about his daughters being virgins because a few verses later he is talking to their husbands and telling them to leave the city and later when he and his daughters are hiding in a cave he sleeps with both of them and gets them both pregnant. It’s all in there.

If people were capable of grasping that kind of truth ‘religion’ would not be a problem.  Unfortunately, the average homo sapiens isn’t equipped to deal with any truth that isn’t spoon fed to them by the media…and that is why we have religion.  Rupert likes the believers.

Absolutely correct.  But even more so, outside of the passage “I am the way, the truth and the life”, Christians avoid at all costs quoting anything that Jesus actually said.

Well to be fair, they did think they were the last people and got him drunk.
There’s nothing like so incestuous drunk lovin.

Bill Hicks:
“I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.”
And I say no, it’s not, Dad.
“Well, I believe that it is.”
Well, you know, some people believe they’re Napoleon. That’s fine.
Beliefs are neat. Cherish them, but don’t share them like they’re the truth.

Holy shit I was like 11 when I read this passage. I honestly think it’s the soul (haaaaaaaaa) reason I am not religious. Just. Right there. Just no. Not the book for me.

Good luck ‘properly translating’ something that doesn’t have an original document, idiot.

Why not? People still participate in their governments, laws, schooling and basically any other form of social constucts they otherwise do not support or agree with. Lets just say constitutional adherents are like bible adherents, and the political parties are like sects. All parties (sects) translate what they want from the constitution and conveniently ignore or take for granted the parts that do not suit their purposes. It really doesnt matter who or what you choose to believe in, tangible, intangible, justice, love etc etc, someone’s going to be right behind you, shitting all over your parade and telling you you are delusional, irrational and subhuman for your ideologies. 

It’s actually easy to prove that they are not property, primarily that you can’t sell your wife or loan her out or force her to work for you (only you have the obligation to work for her, not vice versa). Not to mention that she has her own property that doesn’t belong to you as well. Only children are really considered property being that they were non-entities who could be sold/forced off in marriage etc until the age of majority, but once they reached the age of majority they were free to leave whatever they were put into by the parents. All biblically speaking of course.

lol that he does

Actually, the most accurate translation into English is “ 28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.” from NASB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&version=NASB).

Not sure how you are rationalizing “…seizes her and lies with her…” as anything other than rape.

Several! No, really? The funny thing about most mistranslations in the bible is that the more accurate translations are rarely any better.

And you are intentionally misleading people which is of course expected when the deluded start defending their faith.

Yet God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, it is claimed.  Plus it’s morally reprehensible in any event, so it gives God no points.  Most importantly, though, is why believe in a God at all, if the main reason to believe is appeal to culturally constructed traditions which one agrees are fundamentally flawed?  What attributes must a God have for one to consider it a God, and still, what data would require the acceptance of such a hypothesis as the best available?  If one tries to pin the traditional three qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, one runs straight into Epicurus’ Riddle and the problem of evil, which have never been solved without recourse to special pleading, appeals to ignorance, red herrings, and unconvincing equivocation. Dr. Richard Carrier discusses the predictions that must follow from taking the God hypothesis seriously, and how they clash with reality as observed.  The only honest case that can be made is for an agnostic Deism; but it has no implications whatever for our lives and has nothing to recommend its acceptance but the fancy of the one who chooses to believe.

Athiests and Agnostics trying to make an authoritative commentary on the bible is nothing short of pure comedy. It is almost as funny as the current administration offering ideas on job creation only the current administration is not as prone to make outlandish claims with nothing to back them.

One thing is sure, either the atheists and agnostics are correct in which case there is not much to be bothered about or the Christians are correct and there will be a lot of awkward moment’s in the afterlife. For those of us who feel no need to put down others faith in order to justify our own belief this is a rather sad commentary on the fragility of the convictions of those who profess no faith at all.

On a parting thought can anyone explain the evolutionary process that allowed a Bombardier beetle develop without killing off the species?

…Or the Hindus are correct, and you’ll just keep getting reincarnated until you achieve Atman, unless you ate beef, in which case you’ll be punished for eating a sacred animal–talk about awkward afterlife moments!

Or the Jews are correct, and Christians and Muslims are all suckers for believing false prophets. But on the bright side, there’s no Hell to go to!

Or the Shintoists are right, in which case you die and become a guardian deity for your family. Awkward afterlife moments abound when you have to spend eternity guarding your descendants with Great Aunt Zelda.

Or the Mormons are right, in which case you don’t get your own planet when you die.

Or the Scientologists are right, in which case you sign a billion year contract in exchange for hanging out with Tom Cruise and Kirstie Alley for all that time. So yeah, basically hell.

Regarding your parting note, it’s probably the same evolutionary process that allowed venomous snakes to produce various chemicals in their mouths that belonged in other internal organs, thus allowing them to make venom. But aside from that, even if no one in here can answer your question, that doesn’t mean that the Bombadier Beetle was created, any more than a room full of random people being unable to solve a complex math problem doesn’t mean that no solution to the problem exists.

But here’s an article anyway. Enjoy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

When a large portion of a book that claims itself to be true has hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrable errors we can certainly safely doubt anything in it currently unproven until proven.

Christians love the Old Testament when it agrees with their personal beliefs (i.e. ‘Homosexuality is gross, s so I’m going to quote mine the Bible to support my own dislike for gay sex’), but proclaim that the OT doesn’t count anymore whenever any other part is brought up that conflicts with their pre-existing moral guidelines or preferences for living (i.e. the whole ‘stoning your disobedient children to death’ lines, the passage referenced on the billboard, all of the prohibited foods and actions, etc.)

The Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice.

 I think you have confused this time with your own culture. 

In those days a woman was the property of her father until she married, so, yes, she could be forced to marry her rapist.  If she was no longer a virgin she could be considered spoiled goods and no longer marriagable.  I suppose, however, that she could be persuaded to marry her rapist simply because if she tried to marry someone else who then discovered she was no longer a virgin the biblical law dictated that she could or should be killed. 

Either way the biblical law is barbarous in the light of today’s more enlightened morality. 

It seems that the writers of the Jewish scriptures made their god in their own image and arranged for this divinity to share the same prejudices that they did.  This is a very good reason not to blindly accept these ancient morals as the dictates of a real divinity.  On the other hand, if they were the dictates of an actual god then it is not one that we should think highly of.

Hmm, you can read aramaic, demotic and hebrew and are aware of linguistic and cultural nuances enough to make that assessment?

Well it is a book of multiple historical periods, cultural/linguistic groups, authors, and redacted isrealite mythologies.

The fact that so there are so many different translations which give the text a different theological twist is evidence that the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god, if it exists, is very bad at marketing and communication.  Writing down messages in an obscure language that cannot be reliably translated into any language on earth is not something that an all-wise, knowledgeable, powerful and responsible person would do.  Ergo these books are either written by ancient men or the god who inspired them is either not all powerful or not very smart.

Which means that you have no way of knowing whether what you are reading is what was meant by the original writer, added by someone else, modified by another, mistranslated by someone with a theological bias or incorrectly interpreted by you.  You’d think a perfect divinity could keep his magnum opus safe from damage, wouldn’t you?  Or are you saying that this divine being is relatively powerless in many situations?  Is that why there is so much wrong in the world, so much poor biological design, so many people who are harmed by rapists in spite of praying to their preferred deity?  Or haven’t you considered any of this yet?

Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Admittedly many atheists have a superficial knowledge of scripture, and will often interpret scriptural claims in the most outrageous terms to provoke a reaction.  Nevertheless, most atheists have a superior grasp of scripture compared to most Christians (source: http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx ). As for theologians making authoritative commentary on Scripture, that is black comedy; sad because they apparently believe that their interpretations of a document are reflective of the real world outside the book and are morally binding on everyone, when they are just being either blindly stubborn defenders of an inherited tradition or creatively searching for beyond charitable interpretations of fold history and fairy tales to salvage a shred of respectability.  And ordinary believers don’t even remember what’s in scripture, or never read certain parts that are unsavory.  How is their interpretation meaningful to anyone outside themselves?  Why should one have to believe absolutely in the truth of a proposition or the reliability of a document in order to be qualified to evaluate it?  How can this be conducive to finding the truth when only one conclusion is permitted a priori?  Who decides what is the permitted conclusion?

The Dead Sea Scrolls and non-Canonical writings in between the Testaments were written long after this commandment was written.  All you can say is that the Jewish nation, by this time, had come up with kinder work-arounds to these rules.  Modern day Christians engage in the same kind of re-interpretation of text that that implies or commands things that are not in line with the reader’s social conditioning or cultural norms. 

Unfortunately, this does not stop poorly socialized or mentally ill or defective people from taking the ancient texts literally and using them to justify atrocities.  If the text had been written or significantly inspired by a wise, omniscient, omni-benevolent and all-powerful being then the text would have been written very differently in order to avoid this type of problem. Since we only find text that supports the barbaric customs of ancient goat herders without any provisos or amendments we reasonably assume that it was not written or inspired by a god with those characteristics, or inspired by any kind of god at all.

You are unconscious imbecill.

I imagine that most of the dislike/distrust of organized religion expressed on this site stems from the assumption/suspicion that those involved either a.) blindly follow that which they’ve been told to believe or b.) use the Bible and religion as a means of propagating their own agenda.  Sadly, there are large pockets within Christianity where this rings true.
However, the majority of views expressed in the comments below are doing the same thing…just from the opposite side of the coin.  If you disagree with the Bible (and Christianity) then please defend your position in a thoughtful, educated way. 
Consider a few things…
1. To disprove a position that has been ascribed to the Bible, but does not accurately reflect the Bible is not to disprove the Bible…it serves only to disprove a viewpoint that was false to begin with.
2. To reference Christians who are acting in a manner different from how Christ calls them to act (and there are plenty of them), again doesn’t invalidate Christ’s claims.  It only points out that many who say they follow Him, in fact do not.  Sad though it may be, it does not address the claims of Truth made by Scripture
3. There are copious amounts of scholarly research (from all positions) dedicated to the veracity and historicity of Scripture.  Please spend some time looking at the above, before dismissing the Bible as “inaccurate.”
4. Culture, context, intent, language, and genre are but a few considerations to be made when studying scripture. Before quoting one particular verse or another to suit your argument, spend some time studying it to make sure you’re not proof-texting.

Not trying to be an ass here…just hoping to raise the level of discussion.  If we’re going to disagree and discuss, then let’s at least do it at a productive level.

I wish people would “think for themselves” like those who enroll in institutions of higher learning that teach them the things they need to know to be considered as such.  It also sounds like that process takes away the fear of death, good points itsok.

They are gay

I read “Origin of Species” and decided that there is no right for another to define what is right or wrong, I then celebrated my new found lack of moral reasoning by killing a hooker and declaring it the proper interpretation of Darwinism.  I then forced myself on the first attractive female that strolled into an alley that I had taken a piss in and declared mine, just like I see in nature.  Biological heroism woman, you must exist to allow me to propagate my species.  What moral reason should you not be my property if I happen to be the strongest male?  Please try to assign some worth to yourself if you are nothing but Carbon.

So, I take it you think you can define truth on morality?  Are you a logical Atheist or this new age type that tries to defend morality and peace and love as if there is such a thing?

Rosemary you piece of meat you.  There are Atheist all over who have become Deists.  Your statements mean nothing.  I can’t believe you claim to be a fellow Atheist and demand that women have some invisible right not to be owned by the stronger more violent of the species.  All of the Atheist on this post are logical cowards who invoke morals as a nicotine patch to religion.

How is it that you claim that murderous and loony is wrong?  You must obviously believe in some god.  Sad attempt at pretending to be Atheist if you ask me.

Stupid troll.  Mostly brainless. Probably a teenager.

And borrowed and slightly changed Sumerian myths of creation, floods, towers of Babel and such.  And borrowed gods as well.  The El god does the first creation; the Yahweh god does the second creation.  In Sumerian mythology the El god is the head of the pantheon of gods and the Yahweh god is one of the minions.  In fact, the Yahweh god did not behave very well and got ticked off by the El god.  He then became a Middle Eastern god of war before the Jewish tribes decided to strip him of his wife, Asherah, and make into a monotheistic god who had specially chosen them.

Morality is a social thing.  It is not caused by religion.  People who have been well socialized do good things;  People who have been poorly socialized do bad things.  For good people to do bad things it generally takes religion.

You are no atheist.  You are simply a rude, crude, lying Christian who believes everything they are told by their Pastor without thinking it through or checking it out.  That makes you at least immature, if not stupid. 

Most atheists I know are as moral, or more moral than religious folk, especially the American Fundie Evangelical types.  According to reliable international studies, the more atheists there are in a country the greater the social health or that country, the less major crime, the lower the abortion and teen pregnancy rates and so on.  The reverse is true also: the more religious the community the more problems it has, the higher the crime rate, the greater the poverty, the more abortions, rapes, unmarried mothers, and so on. 

You claim that there are many atheists who have become deists.  Since you make it clear that you have no idea what an atheist is, and probably don’t know what a deist is either, it is not possible to take you seriously.  You have no clue, my dear.

Okay you got me, I didn’t do any of the things I mentioned above.

Ohhhh I am starting to get it now.  Poorly socialized and well socialized are absolute terms.  Yes this is perhaps the most comprehensive system I have found.  You are correct on the last sentence.  It takes religion and a plea to the transcendent to even claim there are good and bad people…meatbag.

I bet you rape boy livestock don’t you?  That is not okay.

You forgot I probably have a large reproductive organ, but how could you have known that until now?  Do you play fast pitch softball?

People who do not believe in intelligent design are merely well educated in the sciences.  This includes most Christians.

We have a perfect example of what happens when a society declares that murder is O.K. The Christian Old Testament describes a society which believed that their god not only condoned mass murder but actually commanded it.  So the Jewish people went out and committed wholesale genocide in neighboring nations, including killing all the innocent children and babies, and doing things like cruelly ham-stringing the cattle.  They kept all the virgin women for and distributed them among the priests and other important people to be serially raped as and when they pleased.  In other cases they insisted that all the adult men be circumcised but then slaughtered them all the following day. In yet another case the Jewish-Christian god complained that the soldiers had not killed all of the population and instructed them to go back and complete the job.

If you don’t know about these stories then you haven’t read the Old Testament very well, if at all.

This was followed by a century when an itinerant Jewish Rabbi was crucified for claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, a figure that was supposed to be a warrior kind that vanquished the invading enemies, aka the Romans.  This was re-packaged as a “good” thing because the Jewish god wanted to use the man’s death as a substitute human sacrifice so that the god could restrain himself from eternally torturing all the humans later on.

This was followed by centuries of slaughter and torture by Christians who continued to believe that god condoned and commanded such things.  After all, there was black and white evidence for this in the Bible. Crusaders killed Muslims and other Infidels as the Bible instructs.  Spanish Catholic Clergy tortured and killed thousands of Christians who did not believe the right kind of thing, justifying their actions by reference to how god behaves in the Bible.  Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake by equally devout Christians.  Galileo was tortured for publishing material that said the sun did not revolve around the earth as the Holy Bible said.

In modern times President Bush justified the death and slaughter of thousands of Iraquis after invading their country on the advice of the Bible God, who spoke to President Bush and told him that he was his chosen vessel and it was the right thing to do.

Many States in the U.S. still declare that murder is O.K. if the State carries it out as a court imposed death sentence.  If you live in this society you already have the answer to your question right here. If you do not object to this, what do you draw on to support your moral stand?

So the answer is that poorly socialized individuals, communities and nations can always justify murder on the basis of a religion that is based on a supernatural being who commands and models violence while giving conflicting messages about “love” and “mercy”. 

OTOH, well socialized individuals will seek to maximize the welfare of all, regardless of their creed, color, race, sexual orientation or economic status.  They base their morality on respect for others and empathic concern for their well-being.  No god required.

Judging by your disrespectful language here, you do not appear to be very well socialized individual.  If you believe that your religion supports this behavior then you are not only an unpleasant human being, you are also a very dangerous one.

The passage in context doesn’t condone rape.  I can find any one sentence of any book, rip it out of context and make it sound awful too to bolster my view of anything.  Doesn’t make it anything other than a straw man, and an unconvincing one at that.

“Sheeple” Good one!

it’s still there because people brain wash their kids into the culture and then the promise of having more time with dead loved ones in heaven is hard to let go of.

No. I have however read the work of many of the multitudes of theologians and other scholars that are qualified in these fields and have already done the research.
There’s this thing called the internet. You can find almost everything if you want to look.

You are quite correct. Religion is a human construct and the concept of a deity came from that construct, therefore god is a human construct. The logic of this is unassailable yet there continues to be people like yourself who completely miss it.

I did one better and invested in a large personal library on the subject and have spent a few years studying it.  I like how you play your hand with the recommendation to google your view.  Type in whatever you want into the search bar and type in “I’m right” before it, great scholarly work on your part!

Let me clarify my point Al Borland, if you type in “Bible inaccuracies explained” or “Why Mohammad is truly the greatest prophet” or “I have the greatest beard in the world” you will find pages and pages of one sided information, make sense boss?

Yet facts are facts no matter where you find them. Your arguments are spurious at best. Here is one simple example.
LEV 11:6  And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
It matters not whether this is an accurate translation. Christians don’t base their beliefs on what the bible should say, but what it does. This is an obvious factual error in a book purportedly inerrant. There are hundreds more. Your choice to deny them or attempt to explain them away will not make the patently false true.
I will waste no more of my time on you.

Post Script:  Your beard is still awesome.

LOL!  nice.  and they are trying for immaculate conception as well.

funny how we all misinterpret our fahter in heavens truth. we are not an accident but intricately designed with love and exists by his grace. by the way he will forgive you . your logo is a devil horns please stop dont destroy or sully his guidance. YAHWEH IS REAL may you be blessed by him may we all be forgiven and shown mercy

I have yet to see one christian follow the bible as god commands them to.   

Take Deuteromony 21:20 as an example – “They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn
and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death”

I’ve seen thousands of stubborn fat christian kids but not even once have I heard about a nice traditional public stoning by the so called faithful.   

If christians would follow god’s law and begin killing their children as commanded to – we could end this nonsense in less than a few generations.

I guess the practice of raping and murdering women, or raping and abandoning women somehow seems to some of the commentators here more moral?  I ask that, because that is what was common practice before the religious law which is being mocked by the billboard.  Even more sickening is the fact that such practices (raping and murdering as well as raping and abandoning) remain far too common in our own day and age.   It’s easy to ignorantly sneer at Biblical commandments when there are so many hypocrites who hold them up as they disregard them with impunity.   But it is intellectually dishonest to fail to recognize that the innovation about this particular law was not to condone rape but to hold that when it occurred a man had legal responsibility to the woman he had wronged.  The solution while grossly insufficient by today’s sensibilities was enlightened compared to the practices of the surrounding peoples of that day. That said, this biblical law never was not a license to commit rape.  To claim otherwise is simply engaging in antisemitic polemics.

Regarding Deut. 22: 28-29Does anyone here believe that the practice of raping and murdering women, or raping and abandoning women somehow seems more moral than what is actually stated in Jewish Biblical laws? I ask that, because that is what was common practice before the religious laws were ordained by G-d which I feel are being simplistically reduced in a mocking manner by the graphic. Rome had an official policy of “conquest by rape.” They even had a policy of violating brides on their wedding nights. This vile practice continued into English law for many centuries. It’s worthy to note that it is cited as one of the causes of the Jewish revolts against occupying forces associated with Chanukah.http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Hanukkah/History/Maccabean_Revolt/hanukkah-bride.shtmlEven more sickening is the fact that such practices (raping and murdering as well as raping and abandoning) remain far too common in our own day and age. It’s easy to ignorantly sneer at Biblical commandments when there are so many hypocrites who hold them up as they disregard the same with impunity. But it is intellectually dishonest to fail to recognize that the innovation about this particular law was not to condone rape but to hold that when it occurred a man had legal responsibility to the woman he had wronged. The man would have to provide for her as he would his wife and not leave her destitute, unmarried, or condemned to a life of prostitution. The solution while grossly insufficient by today’s sensibilities was enlightened compared to the practices of the surrounding peoples of that day. That said, this biblical law never was not a license to commit rape. To claim otherwise is simply engaging in antisemitic polemics.I’m not trying to “convert anyone” to any specific belief system, I just ask people to not judge these Mtizvot (Commandments) solely by how people today (or in the past) abuse them, but rather apply some critical thinking about what the intent of their being ordained might have been. Shalom, Salaam, Peace.

i’m glad truthseeker pointed out the mistranslation. whether it treats women as property is debatable. it’s written in regard to a patriarchal society, like so many other cultures back in the day – not to mention many eastern ones today. i concur such inequity of the sexes is screwed up. — additionally, johnricerson, your interpretation of “sold away by her father” is askew. the payment made for seducing the daughter is restitution, not purchase. it’s part of the guy who got busted’s punishment, which also includes his (as truthseeker said) “you break it, you bought it” life long, punishable-by-death-if-you-split marriage covenant to the girl. — the verse says “he can never divorce her”. in hebrew law, if you broke that marriage covenant and split, her family was obliged to hunt you down and kill you. —- as far as “what she might want” – again, this was in an ancient society where girls were typically betrothed – promised in marriage to someone connected to the family. arranged marriages were often designated to be beneficial to both families. in the case of a guy seducing a girl – even as rape, or date rape, the law was set to force the guilty to pay restitution, akin to a dowry, along with a life sentence of being her husband. —- i’m not married, but in some cases, that guy’s selfish fun for the moment cost him his life as the new “son-in-law”. plus we can’t discount the possibility that the guy might have been a friend of the girl or the family to begin with – instead of assuming a lecher off the street. maybe he just got a little drunk and acted stupid. happens all the time. either way – the picture and billboard above are great for this site – another prime example of hostile-to-religion DISIMFORMATION.  [note: i'm neither a believer, nor an unbeliever in either traditional sense, but where the nay sayers are wrong, i'm not gonna wag my head in approval blindly. same with the religious head waggers. can we at least try to get some logical perspective in our attacks?]

shame on you kevin. “original” documents aside, there are ancient copies – if you knew much about hebrew scribe practice you’d have a clue. but your expertise on the subject doesn’t bug me – it’s your name calling – what the fuck?!?!? i’d be willing to gamble that neither truthseeker nor you nor i are “idiots” — but your behavior on the matter is ignorant. quite the brilliant pagan critic are we? deuteronomy has it’s earliest bits in the dead sea scrolls. what’s your point? or are you too functioning purely on opinion and hearsay like so many here? — if we don’t like it, we call names. how superior.

is any name calling really necessary? it’s certainly not productive. i like what you say and seem to think otherwise. — i’m just never keen of insults. tear apart a person’s logic or lack thereof – fine. rude, ignorant christian troll??? pretty low brow for someone who is attempting to be of better philosophy. insults don’t become you. take the high road. otherwise, name calling makes you a troll.

is any name calling really necessary? it’s certainly not productive. i like what you say and seem to think otherwise. — i’m just never keen of insults. tear apart a person’s logic or lack thereof – fine. rude, ignorant christian troll??? pretty low brow for someone who is attempting to be of better philosophy. insults don’t become you. take the high road. otherwise, name calling makes you a troll.

why dont christians and other religious people just tell everyone that their holy books are ancient fantasy novels?

Wow! How inciteful. I hope you didn’t strain yourself.

I wish I had read this post before I responded to some of your others as this post shows quite clearly you are an ignorant fool that places no value on honesty.

You can’t possibly be serious when you state “I will add the vastly differing so called morals of the many societies and put the priority on yours for some reason.” can you?
The morals (not “so called morals”) of society vary less than you would think and it is organised religion that calls for people to put the priority on theirs. Whether actually moral or not.
Society has declared murder wrong since there was society, religion only requires morals from others, never themselves. If you honestly believe that religion holds any sort of high ground when discussing morals you are a seriously deluded individual and you may as well give up writing on-line as no atheist will ever show that ludicrous opinion any respect as it is demonstrably false and downright moronic.
Millions of people have been killed in the name of a god who’s commandment was “Thou shalt not kill”. Explain where the morals are there. Any attempt would be a blatant lying.