• Tonyr305

    love it!!!

  • Tonyr305

    love it!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bobbie-Jean-Pentecost/100000391760333 Bobbie Jean Pentecost

    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.  

     

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bobbie-Jean-Pentecost/100000391760333 Bobbie Jean Pentecost

    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.  

     

  • bobbiethejean

    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.  

     

    • Jarel

      Truth right there!!

    • DeepCough

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

      • Anarchy Pony

        Christians in the US especially.

      • Alturn

        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.

      • sadako

        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.

        • Jin The Ninja

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

          • Rosemary

            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.

    • RAW3913

      you sound like a bitch. i may be christian but that doesnt mean i agree with all of what the bible says. the bible has been translated, added to, and taken away from for 1,000s of years by the most horrible creature to ever walk earth…men. why the hell shouldnt it sound shady and contradicting?

      • Aaa

        ……And that’s the holy book you base your beliefs on?

        • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

          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. 

          • sadako

            Well when you put it like that, it COMPLETELY justifies that way of thinking.

            Oh, wait. It’s still batshit crazy to believe in something that you have to rationalize the squick out of by saying ‘Oh, it’s been twisted and warped over the centuries, but I still believe in it!’ Or to claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, except for when it doesn’t agree with what they actually believe. The fact that you have to rationalize it demonstrates that you already have a set of moral principles that your own holy book doesn’t live up to.

      • Rosemary

        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?

    • I came from nothing

      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.

      • Rosemary

        You have no idea what an “atheist” is, my dear.  Look it up in the dictionary instead of giving it the twist your Pastor gives it. 

        Atheists are simply people who do not believe in the existence of a god.  Most do so because there is no valid evidence that any god, including the one you believe exists.  As far as the other gods are concerned, you are an atheist, too.  If that makes you want to run out and murder someone then your parents didn’t do a very good job teaching you the morals of this culture, did they?  Either that, or you were too cognitively impaired to learn.  Or both. 

        • I came from nothing

          My mistake, I thought an Atheist was one who did not believe in intelligent design and was perhaps synonymous with humanism and existentialism.  I must have over simplified and will complicate it in accordance with your demands.  I will add the vastly differing so called morals of the many societies and put the priority on yours for some reason.  Quick question, what if our society were to declare that murder was okay?  Where then would you draw your morals to state it is not?

          • Rosemary

            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.

          • I came from nothing

            Nice novel, but failed to answer the question.  Where do you draw the moral grounds to claim that all those murders you cited were wrong?  Why should one not take the stance that the strongest wins as is the case in nature?  Evolution is built on that principle and it serves the theory well, in fact it is the foundation stone and now you say that it is wrong.  Niche warned that when the weak population is protected and flourishes that eventually their biological cowardice would destroy humanity.  You are against the death penalty as an Atheist?  What possible grounds do you have to take that stance?

          • Guest

            All you are doing is pointing out that without god you would me immoral. Not a very good argument. Morals existed before religions. Historians have plenty of evidence of this but you don’t want evidence you just want to shove your ill-informed opinion down the throats of more respectful, more moral people than yourself.

          • What Do

            Just tuning in 1 month later and reading this. Your logic is “seriously fucked up” and I suggest you smoke some weed and start thinking about the purpose of your life, or anyone’s life for that matter.  

          • Guest

            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.

  • http://twitter.com/elphud Pfad Rhamses XV

    I didn’t know it was that simple!

  • hunk

    I didn’t know it was that simple!

  • truthseeker

    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.

  • truthseeker

    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.

    • Johnrickerson

      regardless if the passage does or does not condone rape, it treats the woman as a piece of property, to be sold away by her father, with no attention paid to what she might want.

      • truthseeker

        true. women are treated like a piece of property. this is true with all marriages, whether you look at it in a religious or secular context. Matter of fact the man is also the property of the woman. He must provide for her for the rest of his life. No one is free in marriage, thats the way it is. Its a mechanism of civilization. Also the woman is aware of the mores of her culture back then, She could give her virginity away to a man and petition a marriage, to “trap” a man, kinda like how women purposely get pregnant today… anyways i can see how it could go both ways.

        • Kevin Stanislawski

          What about gay marriages?

          • Jin The Ninja

            A completely different dynamic with a different set of cultural rules.

          • I came from nothing

            They are gay

          • justagirl

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

        • Rosemary

          You seem to have a very jaundiced view of marriage.  What happened to you?

          • featherknife

            Rosemary, usually when a man has a “jaundiced” view of marriage it is because he has been married.

          • Calypso_1

            Perhaps she gave him hepatitis B.

          • justagirl

            but, seriously.  read that comment.  do you really care?  lol.

      • Arden

        I would also add that I don’t believe the correct translation is any better, honestly… “to seduce and have sex with” in those days would PROBABLY include rape, would they not? We’re talking about the bronze age here, people. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have yet to see evidence that they gave any real damn about women’s consent, most of the time. I also seem to remember these sort of verses usually involved warring and looting the enemy, then taking these “virgins” for themselves. How much you wanna bet these women weren’t willing at all? Come on now, if some group of men came and conquered your town or won some battle, possibly killing off your family and friends, would they be the sort of men you’d magically get “seduced” by, in spite of all that?

        I call shenanigans, big time.

        • BurningTightRope

          gotta keep in mind that deuteronomy was allegedly written framing and expounding on hebrew law, using the 10 commandments as the starting point. to jump to conclusions about behavior during war is a real stretch. and as i wrote above – ya can’t remove the verses in question here out of context of ancient patriarchal society where girls were betrothed as the common practice.  
          — to your dismay, jewish culture at the time was an improvement on civility over the surrounding civilizations who thought little of sacrificing virgins, vaginal mutilation, as well as your mentioned spoils of war scenario. hebrew laws were an attempt at improving morality, regardless of this site’s anti-religious disdain. other societies of the time made no attempts to deal with such issues civilly – at least the jews “attempted” merciful and just punishment. they also tried to deal with degrees of guilt – was it a stupid kid, was it a violent intruder, was it pre-meditated, etc. —- if you bother to read the book of deut. you’ll see it had nothing to do with rules of war by intent. it’s civil law (among other things)i don’t mind the opposing arguments – but they need to be in context.

      • SF2K01

        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), nor is she inherited by others. 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.

      • BurningTightRope

        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?]

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabriel-Durrell-Brown-Sr/720365453 Gabriel Durrell Brown Sr.

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

      • truthseeker

        You are correct, Exodus speaks of seduction of a virgin. It demands a financial penalty but no marriage if the father refuses. However, the billboard is not correct nor is the NIV a perfect translation. the NIV translation of “rape” comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. In hebrew taphas means “to lay hold of,” “to lay hold” of a woman is a euphemism for seduction. Shakab means “to lie down,” to lie with a woman is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The King James Version it does not say “rape” it reads: “to lay hold of her, and lie with her, and they be found.” (don’t sound like rape to me) These words are used elsewhere with no connotation of rape and because the penalty of marriage is required in deuteronomy it is thought that the woman was consenting in the “taphas shakab.”

        • Kevin Stanislawski

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

          • BurningTightRope

            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.

    • SF2K01

      Not to mention you can’t force the woman to marry her rapist/seducer/etc, only the man is being forced. If the woman didn’t want to be married to him then nothing much in that way would happen. It’s not like the guy is going to get off scott free, but the bible was trying to establish basic aspects of morality for the Israelites, and a non-virgin girl was pretty screwed (no pun intended) by society. But most people would rather forget that there’s any context to anything being said in the bible and plenty of extra biblical information about what is really meant that they just point and laugh at out of context quotes that “prove” the stupidity of the bible.

      As far as the original hebrew goes, the active verb isn’t the laying with her part, it’s the verb right before that where she was “seized” (תפשה) i.e. by force, part that’s active. Seduction is a totally different verb used in a different context (יפתה) back in Ex. 22:15.

      • Guest

        Don’t start defending the bible. It is without doubt the most inaccurate book ever printed and whilst it is easy to point out the mistaken translations you must remember that believers don’t follow a corrected bible, they follow it as it is, a ridiculous book full of demonstrable errors and then they have the hide to call it divine.

        • SF2K01

          The fact is we don’t “know” about the accuracy of the Bible, or even how accurate it was originally intended to be. The bible is defensible because the problem is that people who claim to believe in it only believe in their retarded interpretations and people who don’t believe in it make up even more retarded interpretations, but none of that has anything to do with the original document. So I’ll defend the bible as a document as I would any other historical document.

          • Guest

            When a large portion of a book that claims itself to be true has hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrable errors it is rational to doubt anything in it currently unproven until proven.
            Please do tell me about the “plenty of extra biblical information about what is really meant” that was written within say one hundred years of Jesus’ existence.

          • SF2K01

            When you say the bible, you mean a lot more than the New Testament, I’m referring more to the Old Testament; the New Testament is a different matter entirely as most of that stuff was written way later and then shoved onto the OT for “support” (although the original church fathers wanted to throw it out because it wasn’t relevant to their theology). As the OT goes there is a lot of Extra-biblical evidence to talk about depending on the individual or event you want to discuss, and plenty of Extra-biblical traditions from those times that discuss the various events.

          • Jz29549

            The only errors are in your puny litlle human brain and corrupt heart…thats it. You are a waste !

          • Rosemary

            Another rude and ignorant Christian troll.

          • BurningTightRope

            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.

          • Guest

            So you are saying the comment by Jz29549: “puny litlle [sic] human brain and corrupt heart” isn’t “name calling” or “low brow” but calling that person “rude and ignorant” is.
            Thank you for perhaps one of the best examples of the hypocrisy of the religious.
            And you people wonder why we don’t respect you or your belief system.

          • Guest

            Wow! You can’t be that ignorant surely. Ah, who am I kidding? You’re a believer therefore you must be that ignorant.

          • Guest

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

        • I came from nothing

          Look, this is simple.  We are all Carbon and have no purpose.  You cannot say someone is wrong just because you decided to disagree with them.  That is stupid.  I find your opinions nothing more than the mandated consequence of a chain of events billions of years ago.  Your opinion has no higher authority for you to plead.  Killer beard though.

          • Rosemary

            Stupid troll.  Mostly brainless. Probably a teenager.

          • I came from nothing

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

          • Guest

            Google “biblical inaccuracies”, gain knowledge.

          • I came from nothing

            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!

          • Guest

            I’m not sure whether I should just assume English isn’t your first language or you just forgot to make some sort of point or what your problem is as your posts rarely make any sense. If you are claiming the bible is inerrant you are either a liar or a fool. Nothing you have said in your last post makes the responses to a Google search for facts any less accurate. There are hundreds of documented blatant errors in the bible. If a book claiming to be true has any errors the whole book must be viewed with scepticism. anything less is intellectual dishonesty. Kind of like christianity itself.

          • I came from nothing

            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?

          • Guest

            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.

          • I came from nothing

            yes, but you fail to look in places that have facts that is your problem.  The example you give is a simple one which is why it takes only a few minutes to deal with.

            Cecotrophy, Janet Tast, D.V.M.
            “Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will re-ingest part of their feces directly
            from the rectum.”  Now if your argument is that the ancient Hebrews didn’t use the word “cud” or have as specific an equivalent then you would be right. 
            Christians don’t claim that every translation is correct, in fact most of the fundamentalists would say the exact opposite.  Further most Biblical scholars would say that it is impossible to translate anything with perfection from one language to another word for word. It is the overall meaning of the translation that is important.  Sucks our conversation will end with you being refuted, but hey you are the one who ended it prematurely.

          • I came from nothing

            Post Script:  Your beard is still awesome.

          • BurningTightRope

            while your point is interesting – everyone knows that google and what can be found on the www needs to be taken with caution. that’s not to disagree that the bible as translated has inaccuracies – it certainly does. so does shakespeare – so does everything! — a moslem once argued that very point to me as to be supportive of the truth of the koran. my problem with his argument is – so what if something has been consistent;y copied without error – perfect copying still does NOT make something true. i can say the sky is green plaid a billion times unchanged, so what. the idea of exactness with many things is over blown as proof —- in that light, google and the bible are the same – just ‘cos it’s spread around the web (and these “scholarly sources” plagiarize each other often without any factual control) — being “educated” too much by the internet can easily result in problems as one picks and chooses from the info that is most to ones liking. —- since most everyone in the world does not have the knowledge, nor the access to “original” texts, we’re all at the mercy of those who do. — “if Google claiming to be true has any errors, the whole web must be viewed with skepticism”. (sorry, i corrected your mistranslation of “scepticism”) anything less is intellectual dishonesty. kind of like a bunch of humans playing verbal roller derby to prove “i’m right, you’re wrong” ——   your’re partially right, so is everyone else here – in part – i haven’t met a single person who has a handle on it all yet

          • Guest

            But Google doesn’t claim to be 100% accurate. No one would believe them if they did. Yet some Christians actually do believe that the Bible is perfectly accurate.
            Anyone who believes the Bible is 100% correct is mentally challenged. Anyone who claims to be Christian and doesn’t believe the Bible is 100% accurate shouldn’t be a Christian as that belief is fundamental to the religion. It simply isn’t possible to believe all of the Bible is correct as it frequently contradicts itself. Therefore belief in any of it is extremely irrational and not the actions of those who value honesty. In short, ALL Christians are hypocrites or mentally faulty and should never be allowed to be in control of those of us who are capable of seeing the absurdity of religion.
            It is a very common tactic to attempt to shift the burden of proof to atheists but it isn’t us that make ridiculous claims. If you want to defend Christianity, or any religion, you have to prove it is true not just get annoyed at the methods reasonable people use to show that it isn’t. As that is simply, demonstrably, impossible I’ll stick to logic and reason and keep on doing my civic duty trying to de-program believers.

      • Rosemary

         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.

        • SF2K01

          I am not speaking from my own culture, rather you are speaking from what you have assumed their culture to be. We find the complete opposite reality to what you have mentioned in non-biblical writings from over 2000 years ago (Dead sea scrolls, non-canon material, etc and carried on in later Jewish traditions centuries beyond) where the Jews then discuss these issues and how it specifically is not understood in that way, and they did not have our modern culture to look to for inspiration on women’s issues.

          Unfortunately, since these, originally oral, traditions are not explicitly stated within the Bible itself, it has lead to a failure of understanding on the part of people who are detached from that tradition and who are literally making up interpretations as they go along rather than looking to how the ancient Jews understood their own writings.

          Reading the Bible detached from the traditions that produced it simply leads to an incomprehensible document, and people are forced to create their own interpretations that are simply wrong and unfounded.

          • Rosemary

            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.

          • SF2K01

            I simply suggest that there is more to meet the eye, the question of God is irrelevant. If you read something in the Bible that seems too wacky to believe people would have as law, there’s a good chance that’s not how they understood it when it was introduced either. The fact that such a thing is noted in the Jewish traditions shows that it is not what it literally appears to be (yes the writings themselves are later, but the traditions are so developed they did not appear overnight and were likely always around). People who the text wasn’t designed for would naturally lack much of the ability to understand it, especially with a literal cursory reading.

            I disagree with the idea that they would have been written differently as the Jewish Bible was never intended for worldwide cultural distribution in the way Christianity portends, but was always intended for the Jewish people who had the traditions (having been given alongside the original text) to understand it in the first place, making the entire issue moot.

            I always find it silly when Christians get worked up over the commandments as their own religion threw them out anyhow, so really their religion doesn’t care how they are interpreted at all.

          • I came from nothing

            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.

          • Rosemary

            Quit lying. 

            If you had really read Origin of the Species you know that you talking utter drivel.  You cannot even tell the difference between modification by descent and Social Darwinism.  Apart from the name, Social Darwinism has very little, if anything, to do with the scientific theory of how evolution works to produce different species.  The scientific theory also has nothing to do with nihilsm, hedonism, emotional immaturity, delinquent behavior or poor social skills. 

            Start reading real science instead of parroting what you pastor tells you without checking to see if he has any idea what he is talking about.  If this is what he has told you then he is quite ignorant.  So are you.

          • I came from nothing

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

        • I came from nothing

          more enlightened morality?  Is that how you describe your society?  HAAAAAHAAAHAAAA…..

    • unbound55

      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.

    • Guest

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

      • Jin The Ninja

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

        • Guest

          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.

          • Jin The Ninja

            If access to the internet was any measure of scholarship, there would be millions of PhDs in the world…

  • Johnrickerson

    regardless if the passage does or does not condone rape, it treats the woman as a piece of property, to be sold away by her father, with no attention paid to what she might want.

  • moresporecore

    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.

  • moresporecore

    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.

    • mrtastycakes

      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.”

      • Guest

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

        • Karl

          Or when they are defending their lack of faith or understanding of the message. But this is probably why there are so few athiest theologians and no shortage of Athiests who imagine they hold some insight into the bible. It does however almost guarantee an Athiest will volunteer to provide comic relief for the person of faith.

          • Rosemary

            That is a contradiction in terms.  There quite a collection of atheists who are ex-theologians as well as those who are ex ministers, pastors, priests, brothers, monks, nuns and missionaries. 

            There are also a number of people in these professions who are have become atheists but cannot afford to admit this publicly for financial, social, family and personal safety reasons.  There has been some recent research published on a sample of these stressed people. 

          • I came from nothing

            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.

          • Rosemary

            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.

  • truthseeker

    true. women are treated like a piece of property. this is true with all marriages, whether you look at it in a religious or secular context. Matter of fact the man is also the property of the woman. He must provide for her for the rest of his life. No one is free in marriage, thats the way it is. Its a mechanism of civilization. Also the woman is aware of the mores of her culture back then, She could give her virginity away to a man and petition a marriage, to “trap” a man, kinda like how women purposely get pregnant today… anyways i can see how it could go both ways.

  • Jarel

    Truth right there!!

  • Jarel

    Truth right there!!

  • Jarel

    Truth right there!!

  • Jarel

    Truth right there!!

  • DeepCough

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

  • DeepCough

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

  • DeepCough

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

  • Anonymous

    But virgins suck in bed!

  • Redacted

    But virgins suck in bed!

    • Jin The Ninja

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

    • neurolux

      Oh good. That’s exactly what I want.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabriel-Durrell-Brown-Sr/720365453 Gabriel Durrell Brown Sr.

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

  • Mysophobe

    I like the passage in the bible where the dude offers his daughters to be raped by the angry mob rather than have his angel houseguests take a beating.

  • Mysophobe

    I like the passage in the bible where the dude offers his daughters to be raped by the angry mob rather than have his angel houseguests take a beating.

    • Daddytomjm

      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.

      • Travmanbw

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

        • Kevin Stanislawski

          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.

          • NYMensMinistry

            Hi Kevin.  Jesus didn’t like organized religion either.  He held out his harshest words for the pharisees, who taught one thing and did another.  Unfortunately this is still happening and it is probably the single greatest reason that people turn away from their faith.

            I’m a Christian but don’t get me wrong I’m horrified by many of the things that happen in the Bible.  I’m also horrified when I read the NY Times so I guess, we haven’t changed.  In one way, it brings more credibility to the Bible.  If everyone and everything was perfect, I know I would write it off as a fable.

            Actually God agrees with you about the craziness people do in the Bible.  This is what is said in Genesis 6:5 but also in many different ways elsewhere: “The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.”

            In regards to incest, the book of Leviticus outlaws it but it’s important to understand that it was fairly common at that time.  The important thing to know is that Lot had to be made drunk and asleep before his wicked daughters could get their way.  But there really is no explaining it, much like many of the bad or selfish deeds done in the Bible.

            The contrast is Jesus.  He was the only significant person in the Bible that lived a perfect life.  

            There is more, but I’m not sure if I’m welcome here so I’ll wait to see how you respond.  I hope you and all the members of this website have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

            I don’t have all the answers but I’m willing to share what I know if you want to talk.  Thanks

      • Jz29549

        You are unconscious imbecill.

        • M.P.F.C.

          It is IMBECILE, not “imbecill”!!!
          You imbecile!

      • I came from nothing

        I like the part where the Bible says that all are sinners then talks about the sins that people commit, your right its all in there.

  • Anonymous

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

  • itsok

    Why do people still practice organized religion? Haven’t we evolved enough to see through the ridiculousness of these fables. Religion was created in order to control people. We have enough controlling agencies in our current societies. Sheeple voluntarily choose to join these organizations because they don’t want to think for themselves, they want to be lead and they are afraid of death. 

  • itsok

    Why do people still practice organized religion? Haven’t we evolved enough to see through the ridiculousness of these fables. Religion was created in order to control people. We have enough controlling agencies in our current societies. Sheeple voluntarily choose to join these organizations because they don’t want to think for themselves, they want to be lead and they are afraid of death. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_REQMYJH37PVB2CQ7YT4B4KY6Y4 Ryan

      well said sir

    • I came from nothing

      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.

    • Len

      “Sheeple” Good one!

    • Kevthomas187

      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.

    • BurningTightRope

      well itsok, i think you’re over simplifying, not that it’s not a valid question. if “we’ve evolved” then it should be obvious that religion was not “created in order to control people”, but it’s also a result of evolution, and evolution of any kind isn’t one person’s agenda or fault, it just happens. does religion control people? ehhh, it’s more that people control people who choose or are misled into submitting to some guys alleged authority as a teacher or leader. to say that “sheeple voluntarily choose to join… organizations b/c they don’t wanna think for themselves” is a generalized assumption. why do people join bowling leagues, the masons, the lions club, a street gang….??? i don’t think church or religion is any different in the realm of evolved humanity – it’s about affinity. some want to be led, some want to join the group to rise to leadership, some just want to belong to something with people who think like they do – that’s why stadiums fill with people – the cult of football – every year, ad nauseam. it’s part of the human condition and it’s all the same thing. the family, the tribe, the city, the state, the ethnicity, and yes, the spiritual belief system, whether it be pagan or theisitic. “religion created to… control…” it’s too diverse of a thing regionally and historically to generalize. do some people control other people with religion? yes. do some people control other people with intellectual rankings in scholastic environments? yes. it’s simply the herd mentality. no need to make it a conscious conspiracy. religion will only be beaten when we stop turning it into a big scary monster and see it as the common social expression that it is. 

  • mrtastycakes

    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.”

  • mrtastycakes

    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.”

  • Anti-Citizen1

    Christians in the US especially.

  • truthseeker

    You are correct, Exodus speaks of seduction of a virgin. It demands a financial penalty but no marriage if the father refuses. However, the billboard is not correct nor is the NIV a perfect translation. the NIV translation of “rape” comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. In hebrew taphas means “to lay hold of,” “to lay hold” of a woman is a euphemism for seduction. Shakab means “to lie down,” to lie with a woman is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The King James Version it does not say “rape” it reads: “to lay hold of her, and lie with her, and they be found.” (don’t sound like rape to me) These words are used elsewhere with no connotation of rape and because the penalty of marriage is required in deuteronomy it is thought that the woman was consenting in the “taphas shakab.”

  • Anonymous

    Oh good. That’s exactly what I want.

  • kaomghin12

    Just went ahead and compared this to the actual verse, and it doesn’t quite match up.  The way it reads makes it seem more like, if you rape a virgin, your punishment for not keeping your thing in your pants is to have to keep the virgin for a wife… forever.

  • kaomghin12

    Just went ahead and compared this to the actual verse, and it doesn’t quite match up.  The way it reads makes it seem more like, if you rape a virgin, your punishment for not keeping your thing in your pants is to have to keep the virgin for a wife… forever.

    • Guest

      Those of you who say you compared this verse should be a little more specific. Look your Biblical quotes up here http://bible.cc/ that way you can compare what is written in multiple versions of the Bible (all of which are 100% correct of course)
      For this quote read: http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

      • Rosemary

        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.

  • Theodorewhitfield

    check the Website Evilbible .com

  • Theodorewhitfield

    check the Website Evilbible .com

  • jakehalverson

    I bought the X-Rated Bible which depicts the lewd sexual acts throughout the Bible. I have still not been able to bring myself to read more than a couple pages because of that churning feeling it brings to my stomach. Maybe someday.

  • jakehalverson

    I bought the X-Rated Bible which depicts the lewd sexual acts throughout the Bible. I have still not been able to bring myself to read more than a couple pages because of that churning feeling it brings to my stomach. Maybe someday.

  • Daddytomjm

    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.

  • KREET-n SLAVE

    there is no such thing as god
    and no higher judgement than your own

  • http://KREET-N.BLOGSPOT.COM/ KREET-N

    there is no such thing as god
    and no higher judgement than your own

    • I came from nothing

      Ah, Kreet understands true Atheism.  I’m sure you agree that women are property as I do because since when can we not have Carbon as a possession.  Funny how they have to invoke morality to claim that we can’t, which they must draw from God.  

      • Rosemary

        You fail to define atheism correctly.  It has nothing to do with behaving like a jerk.  OTOH, the Bible god gave  a number of commandments to his people that treated women as property and worse.  Read the book of Leviticus all the way through.  If you want to follow many of this god’s examples or all of his commandments then you will be a monster.  If you live in the U.S. you will then join the largely Christian population in prison.  Atheists are very under-represented in prisons. 

        • I came from nothing

          Oh, I didn’t realize you were still here.  I don’t feel like procreating right now, so you may leave.  Don’t take offense, I just accept you for your biological function and reject any make believe intrinsic worth that you supposedly rate for being born.

        • I came from nothing

          I think you mistake morality with laws.  I can get thrown in jail for standing up for certain “moral” issues these days.  Listen animated one, Atheism means just as it sounds.  To reject theism or the belief in a transcendent intelligence.  Any addition to that is just your relative opinion based on a predisposed chemical process and your DNA.  Accept your worthlessness.

  • Toggler

    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.

  • Toggler

    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.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_REQMYJH37PVB2CQ7YT4B4KY6Y4 Ryan

      lol that he does

  • Arden

    I would also add that I don’t believe the correct translation is any better, honestly… “to seduce and have sex with” in those days would PROBABLY include rape, would they not? We’re talking about the bronze age here, people. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have yet to see evidence that they gave any real damn about women’s consent, most of the time. I also seem to remember these sort of verses usually involved warring and looting the enemy, then taking these “virgins” for themselves. How much you wanna bet these women weren’t willing at all? Come on now, if some group of men came and conquered your town or won some battle, possibly killing off your family and friends, would they be the sort of men you’d magically get “seduced” by, in spite of all that?

    I call shenanigans, big time.

  • Alturn

    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.

  • RAW3913

    you sound like a bitch. i may be christian but that doesnt mean i agree with all of what the bible says. the bible has been translated, added to, and taken away from for 1,000s of years by the most horrible creature to ever walk earth…men. why the hell shouldnt it sound shady and contradicting?

  • Travmanbw

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

  • Aaa

    ……And that’s the holy book you base your beliefs on?

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    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.

  • BuzzCoastin

    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.

    • I came from nothing

      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

        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.

        • I came from nothing

          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.

  • Kevin Stanislawski

    Best billboard ever.

  • Kevin Stanislawski

    Best billboard ever.

    • I came from nothing

      Not if you are true to Atheism.

      • Rosemary

        Would somebody block and delete this obvious troll. 

        • I came from nothing

          Would someone remind Rosemary that her opinions are no more important than the next person’s.  Having a different one than yours does not constitute censorship in a free society meatbag.

  • Kevin Stanislawski

    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.

  • Kevin Stanislawski

    What about gay marriages?

  • Kevin Stanislawski

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

  • Kevin Stanislawski

    Yea, some dumb bitch vagina with tits. Hahaha. Sounds fun! Until she opens her mouth……(for conversation).

  • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

    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. 

  • Anonymous

    Not to mention you can’t force the woman to marry her rapist/seducer/etc, only the man is being forced. If the woman didn’t want to be married to him then nothing much in that way would happen. It’s not like the guy is going to get off scott free, but the bible was trying to establish basic aspects of morality for the Israelites, and a non-virgin girl was pretty screwed (no pun intended) by society. But most people would rather forget that there’s any context to anything being said in the bible and plenty of extra biblical information about what is really meant that they just point and laugh at out of context quotes that “prove” the stupidity of the bible.

    As far as the original hebrew goes, the active verb isn’t the laying with her part, it’s the verb right before that where she was “seized” (תפשה) i.e. by force, part that’s active. Seduction is a totally different verb used in a different context (יפתה) back in Ex. 22:15.

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_REQMYJH37PVB2CQ7YT4B4KY6Y4 Ryan

    well said sir

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_REQMYJH37PVB2CQ7YT4B4KY6Y4 Ryan

    lol that he does

  • http://bankofclarity.tumblr.com Blaine

    Just looked this up and this is essentially what the verse says.  Incredible.

  • http://bankofclarity.tumblr.com Blaine

    Just looked this up and this is essentially what the verse says.  Incredible.

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • Guest

    - New Testament has different rules than Old Testament

    – Just because religion (a human construct) is all messed up doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist

  • Guest

    - New Testament has different rules than Old Testament

    – Just because religion (a human construct) is all messed up doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist

    • Alerikhoeh

      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.

    • Michael

      Ive heard this argument several times and i have to stay it seemed valid. However to simply discredit the entire first half of the bible because a revised addition of the rules was written means one of two things. A) god made some mistakes in the fist version and therefore isnt all knowing. B)god was a huge cunt for thousands of years until he had a change of heart and therefore isnt all loving unless u were lucky enough to be born post 1bc

    • Guest

      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.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

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

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    Don’t start defending the bible. It is without doubt the most inaccurate book ever printed and whilst it is easy to point out the mistaken translations you must remember that believers don’t follow a corrected bible, they follow it as it is, a ridiculous book full of demonstrable errors and then they have the hide to call it divine.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

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

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    Those of you who say you compared this verse should be a little more specific. Look your Biblical quotes up here http://bible.cc/ that way you can compare what is written in multiple versions of the Bible (all of which are 100% correct of course)
    For this quote read: http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

  • Alerikhoeh

    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.

  • Anonymous

    The fact is we don’t “know” about the accuracy of the Bible, or even how accurate it was originally intended to be. The bible is defensible because the problem is that people who claim to believe in it only believe in their retarded interpretations and people who don’t believe in it make up even more retarded interpretations, but none of that has anything to do with the original document. So I’ll defend the bible as a document as I would any other historical document.

  • Karl

    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?

  • Karl

    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?

    • sadako

      …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

    • Alerikhoeh

      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?

  • Karl

    Or when they are defending their lack of faith or understanding of the message. But this is probably why there are so few athiest theologians and no shortage of Athiests who imagine they hold some insight into the bible. It does however almost guarantee an Athiest will volunteer to provide comic relief for the person of faith.

  • sadako

    …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

  • Michael

    Ive heard this argument several times and i have to stay it seemed valid. However to simply discredit the entire first half of the bible because a revised addition of the rules was written means one of two things. A) god made some mistakes in the fist version and therefore isnt all knowing. B)god was a huge cunt for thousands of years until he had a change of heart and therefore isnt all loving unless u were lucky enough to be born post 1bc

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    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.

  • sadako

    Well when you put it like that, it COMPLETELY justifies that way of thinking.

    Oh, wait. It’s still batshit crazy to believe in something that you have to rationalize the squick out of by saying ‘Oh, it’s been twisted and warped over the centuries, but I still believe in it!’ Or to claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, except for when it doesn’t agree with what they actually believe. The fact that you have to rationalize it demonstrates that you already have a set of moral principles that your own holy book doesn’t live up to.

  • sadako

    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.

  • Anonymous

    When you say the bible, you mean a lot more than the New Testament, I’m referring more to the Old Testament; the New Testament is a different matter entirely as most of that stuff was written way later and then shoved onto the OT for “support” (although the original church fathers wanted to throw it out because it wasn’t relevant to their theology). As the OT goes there is a lot of Extra-biblical evidence to talk about depending on the individual or event you want to discuss, and plenty of Extra-biblical traditions from those times that discuss the various events.

  • Rosemary

     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.

  • Rosemary

    You seem to have a very jaundiced view of marriage.  What happened to you?

  • Anonymous

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

  • Anonymous

    A completely different dynamic with a different set of cultural rules.

  • Anonymous

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

  • Rosemary

    That is a contradiction in terms.  There quite a collection of atheists who are ex-theologians as well as those who are ex ministers, pastors, priests, brothers, monks, nuns and missionaries. 

    There are also a number of people in these professions who are have become atheists but cannot afford to admit this publicly for financial, social, family and personal safety reasons.  There has been some recent research published on a sample of these stressed people. 

  • Rosemary

    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.

  • Gross

    This is why I stick with raping livestock.

    • I came from nothing

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

  • Gross

    This is why I stick with raping livestock.

  • Rosemary

    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?

  • Anonymous

    I am not speaking from my own culture, rather you are speaking from what you have assumed their culture to be. We find the complete opposite reality to what you have mentioned in non-biblical writings from over 2000 years ago (Dead sea scrolls, non-canon material, etc and carried on in later Jewish traditions centuries beyond) where the Jews then discuss these issues and how it specifically is not understood in that way, and they did not have our modern culture to look to for inspiration on women’s issues.

    Unfortunately, since these, originally oral, traditions are not explicitly stated within the Bible itself, it has lead to a failure of understanding on the part of people who are detached from that tradition and literally making up interpretations as we go along rather than looking to how the ancient Jews understood their own writings.

  • Alerikhoeh

    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?

  • Alerikhoeh

    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?

  • Rosemary

    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.

  • Anonymous

    I simply suggest that there is more to meet the eye, the question of God is irrelevant. If you read something in the Bible that seems too wacky to believe people would have as law, there’s a good chance that’s not how they understood it when it was introduced either. The fact that such a thing is noted in the Jewish traditions shows that it is not what it literally appears to be (yes the writings themselves are later, but the traditions are so developed they did not appear overnight and were likely always around). People who the text wasn’t designed for would naturally lack much of the ability to understand it, especially with a literal cursory reading.

    I disagree with the idea that they would have been written differently as the Jewish Bible was never intended for worldwide cultural distribution in the way Christianity portends, but was always intended for the Jewish people who had the traditions (having been given alongside the original text) to understand it in the first place, making the entire issue moot.

    I always find it silly when Christians get worked up over the commandments as their own religion threw them out anyhow, so really their religion doesn’t care how they are interpreted at all.

  • Jz29549

    You are unconscious imbecill.

  • Jz29549

    The only errors are in your puny litlle human brain and corrupt heart…thats it. You are a waste !

  • VoiceOfReason

    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.

  • VoiceOfReason

    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.

  • M.P.F.C.

    It is IMBECILE, not “imbecill”!!!
    You imbecile!

  • I came from nothing

    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.

  • I came from nothing

    I like the part where the Bible says that all are sinners then talks about the sins that people commit, your right its all in there.

  • I came from nothing

    They are gay

  • I came from nothing

    more enlightened morality?  Is that how you describe your society?  HAAAAAHAAAHAAAA…..

  • I came from nothing

    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.

  • I came from nothing

    Look, this is simple.  We are all Carbon and have no purpose.  You cannot say someone is wrong just because you decided to disagree with them.  That is stupid.  I find your opinions nothing more than the mandated consequence of a chain of events billions of years ago.  Your opinion has no higher authority for you to plead.  Killer beard though.

  • I came from nothing

    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?

  • I came from nothing

    Ah, Kreet understands true Atheism.  I’m sure you agree that women are property as I do because since when can we not have Carbon as a possession.  Funny how they have to invoke morality to claim that we can’t, which they must draw from God.  

  • I came from nothing

    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.

  • I came from nothing

    Not if you are true to Atheism.

  • I came from nothing

    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.

  • Rosemary

    Quit lying. 

    If you had really read Origin of the Species you know that you talking utter drivel.  You cannot even tell the difference between modification by descent and Social Darwinism.  Apart from the name, Social Darwinism has very little, if anything, to do with the scientific theory of how evolution works to produce different species.  The scientific theory also has nothing to do with nihilsm, hedonism, emotional immaturity, delinquent behavior or poor social skills. 

    Start reading real science instead of parroting what you pastor tells you without checking to see if he has any idea what he is talking about.  If this is what he has told you then he is quite ignorant.  So are you.

  • Rosemary

    Stupid troll.  Mostly brainless. Probably a teenager.

  • Rosemary

    Another rude and ignorant Christian troll.

  • Rosemary

    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.

  • Rosemary

    You have no idea what an “atheist” is, my dear.  Look it up in the dictionary instead of giving it the twist your Pastor gives it. 

    Atheists are simply people who do not believe in the existence of a god.  Most do so because there is no valid evidence that any god, including the one you believe exists.  As far as the other gods are concerned, you are an atheist, too.  If that makes you want to run out and murder someone then your parents didn’t do a very good job teaching you the morals of this culture, did they?  Either that, or you were too cognitively impaired to learn.  Or both. 

  • Rosemary

    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.

  • Rosemary

    You fail to define atheism correctly.  It has nothing to do with behaving like a jerk.  OTOH, the Bible god gave  a number of commandments to his people that treated women as property and worse.  Read the book of Leviticus all the way through.  If you want to follow many of this god’s examples or all of his commandments then you will be a monster.  If you live in the U.S. you will then join the largely Christian population in prison.  Atheists are very under-represented in prisons. 

  • Rosemary

    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.

  • Rosemary

    Would somebody block and delete this obvious troll. 

  • I came from nothing

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

  • I came from nothing

    My mistake, I thought an Atheist was one who did not believe in intelligent design and was perhaps synonymous with humanism and existentialism.  I must have over simplified and will complicate it in accordance with your demands.  I will add the vastly differing so called morals of the many societies and put the priority on yours for some reason.  Quick question, what if our society were to declare that murder was okay?  Where then would you draw your morals to state it is not?

  • I came from nothing

    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 came from nothing

    Would someone remind Rosemary that her opinions are no more important than the next person’s.  Having a different one than yours does not constitute censorship in a free society meatbag.

  • I came from nothing

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

  • I came from nothing

    Oh, I didn’t realize you were still here.  I don’t feel like procreating right now, so you may leave.  Don’t take offense, I just accept you for your biological function and reject any make believe intrinsic worth that you supposedly rate for being born.

  • I came from nothing

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

  • I came from nothing

    I think you mistake morality with laws.  I can get thrown in jail for standing up for certain “moral” issues these days.  Listen animated one, Atheism means just as it sounds.  To reject theism or the belief in a transcendent intelligence.  Any addition to that is just your relative opinion based on a predisposed chemical process and your DNA.  Accept your worthlessness.

  • Rosemary

    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.

  • Anonymous

    Rosemary, usually when a man has a “jaundiced” view of marriage it is because he has been married.

  • Unsuccessful troll.

    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.

  • Unsuccessful troll.

    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.

  • I came from nothing

    Nice novel, but failed to answer the question.  Where do you draw the moral grounds to claim that all those murders you cited were wrong?  Why should one not take the stance that the strongest wins as is the case in nature?  Evolution is built on that principle and it serves the theory well, in fact it is the foundation stone and now you say that it is wrong.  Niche warned that when the weak population is protected and flourishes that eventually their biological cowardice would destroy humanity.  You are against the death penalty as an Atheist?  What possible grounds do you have to take that stance?

  • Len

    “Sheeple” Good one!

  • Calypso

    Perhaps she gave him hepatitis B.

  • Kevthomas187

    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.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    Wow! You can’t be that ignorant surely. Ah, who am I kidding? You’re a believer therefore you must be that ignorant.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    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.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    All you are doing is pointing out that without god you would me immoral. Not a very good argument. Morals existed before religions. Historians have plenty of evidence of this but you don’t want evidence you just want to shove your ill-informed opinion down the throats of more respectful, more moral people than yourself.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    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.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    Google “biblical inaccuracies”, gain knowledge.

  • I came from nothing

    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!

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    I’m not sure whether I should just assume English isn’t your first language or you just forgot to make some sort of point or what your problem is as your posts rarely make any sense. If you are claiming the bible is inerrant you are either a liar or a fool. Nothing you have said in your last post makes the responses to a Google search for facts any less accurate. There are hundreds of documented blatant errors in the bible. If a book claiming to be true has any errors the whole book must be viewed with scepticism. anything less is intellectual dishonesty. Kind of like christianity itself.

  • I came from nothing

    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?

  • Anonymous

    If access to the internet was any measure of scholarship, there would be millions of PhDs in the world…

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    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.

  • I came from nothing

    yes, but you fail to look in places that have facts that is your problem.  The example you give is a simple one which is why it takes only a few minutes to deal with.

    Cecotrophy, Janet Tast, D.V.M.
    “Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will re-ingest part of their feces directly
    from the rectum.”  Now if your argument is that the ancient Hebrews didn’t use the word “cud” or have as specific an equivalent then you would be right. 
    Christians don’t claim that every translation is correct, in fact most of the fundamentalists would say the exact opposite.  Further most Biblical scholars would say that it is impossible to translate anything with perfection from one language to another word for word. It is the overall meaning of the translation that is important.  Sucks our conversation will end with you being refuted, but hey you are the one who ended it prematurely.

  • I came from nothing

    Post Script:  Your beard is still awesome.

  • justagirl

    but, seriously.  read that comment.  do you really care?  lol.

  • justagirl

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

  • justagirl

    now all you bible freaks need to do is pass the bar exam.  then your prayers will be answered.  allmend.

  • justagirl

    now all you bible freaks need to do is pass the bar exam.  then your prayers will be answered.  allmend.

  • Dina Talavera70

    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

  • Dina Talavera70

    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

  • What Do

    Just tuning in 1 month later and reading this. Your logic is “seriously fucked up” and I suggest you smoke some weed and start thinking about the purpose of your life, or anyone’s life for that matter.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Iam-Skycake/100001620503494 Iam Skycake

    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.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Iam-Skycake/100001620503494 Iam Skycake

    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.

  • Aftb

    This is taken way out of context. Good job commenting on something that wasn’t properly researched.

  • Aftb

    This is taken way out of context. Good job commenting on something that wasn’t properly researched.

  • Pandj Be

    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.

  • Pandj Be

    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.

  • NYMensMinistry

    Hi Kevin.  Jesus didn’t like organized religion either.  He held out his harshest words for the pharisees, who taught one thing and did another.  Unfortunately this is still happening and it is probably the single greatest reason that people turn away from their faith.

    I’m a Christian but don’t get me wrong I’m horrified by many of the things that happen in the Bible.  I’m also horrified when I read the NY Times so I guess, we haven’t changed.  In one way, it brings more credibility to the Bible.  If everyone and everything was perfect, I know I would write it off as a fable.

    Actually God agrees with you about the craziness people do in the Bible.  This is what is said in Genesis 6:5 but also in many different ways elsewhere: “The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.”

    In regards to incest, the book of Leviticus outlaws it but it’s important to understand that it was fairly common at that time.  The important thing to know is that Lot had to be made drunk and asleep before his wicked daughters could get their way.  But there really is no explaining it, much like many of the bad or selfish deeds done in the Bible.

    The contrast is Jesus.  He was the only significant person in the Bible that lived a perfect life.  

    There is more, but I’m not sure if I’m welcome here so I’ll wait to see how you respond.  I hope you and all the members of this website have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

    I don’t have all the answers but I’m willing to share what I know if you want to talk.  Thanks

  • Pandj Be

    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.

  • Pandj Be

    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.

  • BurningTightRope

    well itsok, i think you’re over simplifying, not that it’s not a valid question. if “we’ve evolved” then it should be obvious that religion was not “created in order to control people”, but it’s also a result of evolution, and evolution of any kind isn’t one person’s agenda or fault, it just happens. does religion control people? ehhh, it’s more that people control people who choose or are misled into submitting to some guys alleged authority as a teacher or leader. to say that “sheeple voluntarily choose to join… organizations b/c they don’t wanna think for themselves” is a generalized assumption. why do people join bowling leagues, the masons, the lions club, a street gang….??? i don’t think church or religion is any different in the realm of evolved humanity – it’s about affinity. some want to be led, some want to join the group to rise to leadership, some just want to belong to something with people who think like they do – that’s why stadiums fill with people – the cult of football – every year, ad nauseam. it’s part of the human condition and it’s all the same thing. the family, the tribe, the city, the state, the ethnicity, and yes, the spiritual belief system, whether it be pagan or theisitic. “religion created to… control…” it’s too diverse of a thing regionally and historically to generalize. do some people control other people with religion? yes. do some people control other people with intellectual rankings in scholastic environments? yes. it’s simply the herd mentality. no need to make it a conscious conspiracy. religion will only be beaten when we stop turning it into a big scary monster and see it as the common social expression that it is. 

  • BurningTightRope

    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?]

  • BurningTightRope

    gotta keep in mind that deuteronomy was allegedly written framing and expounding on hebrew law, using the 10 commandments as the starting point. to jump to conclusions about behavior during war is a real stretch. and as i wrote above – ya can’t remove the verses in question here out of context of ancient patriarchal society where girls were betrothed as the common practice.  
    — to your dismay, jewish culture at the time was an improvement on civility over the surrounding civilizations who thought little of sacrificing virgins, vaginal mutilation, as well as your mentioned spoils of war scenario. hebrew laws were an attempt at improving morality, regardless of this site’s anti-religious disdain. other societies of the time made no attempts to deal with such issues civilly – at least the jews “attempted” merciful and just punishment. they also tried to deal with degrees of guilt – was it a stupid kid, was it a violent intruder, was it pre-meditated, etc. —- if you bother to read the book of deut. you’ll see it had nothing to do with rules of war by intent. it’s civil law (among other things)i don’t mind the opposing arguments – but they need to be in context.

  • BurningTightRope

    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.

  • BurningTightRope

    while your point is interesting – everyone knows that google and what can be found on the www needs to be taken with caution. that’s not to disagree that the bible as translated has inaccuracies – it certainly does. so does shakespeare – so does everything! — a moslem once argued that very point to me as to be supportive of the truth of the koran. my problem with his argument is – so what if something has been consistent;y copied without error – perfect copying still does NOT make something true. i can say the sky is green plaid a billion times unchanged, so what. the idea of exactness with many things is over blown as proof —- in that light, google and the bible are the same – just ‘cos it’s spread around the web (and these “scholarly sources” plagiarize each other often without any factual control) — being “educated” too much by the internet can easily result in problems as one picks and chooses from the info that is most to ones liking. —- since most everyone in the world does not have the knowledge, nor the access to “original” texts, we’re all at the mercy of those who do. — “if Google claiming to be true has any errors, the whole web must be viewed with skepticism”. (sorry, i corrected your mistranslation of “scepticism”) anything less is intellectual dishonesty. kind of like a bunch of humans playing verbal roller derby to prove “i’m right, you’re wrong” ——   your’re partially right, so is everyone else here – in part – i haven’t met a single person who has a handle on it all yet

  • BurningTightRope

    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.

  • BurningTightRope

    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.

  • BurningTightRope

    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.

  • BurningTightRope

    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.

  • Kruse1994

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

  • Anonymous

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

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    But Google doesn’t claim to be 100% accurate. No one would believe them if they did. Yet some Christians actually do believe that the Bible is perfectly accurate.
    Anyone who believes the Bible is 100% correct is mentally challenged. Anyone who claims to be Christian and doesn’t believe the Bible is 100% accurate shouldn’t be a Christian as that belief is fundamental to the religion. It simply isn’t possible to believe all of the Bible is correct as it frequently contradicts itself. Therefore belief in any of it is extremely irrational and not the actions of those who value honesty. In short, ALL Christians are hypocrites or mentally faulty and should never be allowed to be in control of those of us who are capable of seeing the absurdity of religion.
    It is a very common tactic to attempt to shift the burden of proof to atheists but it isn’t us that make ridiculous claims. If you want to defend Christianity, or any religion, you have to prove it is true not just get annoyed at the methods reasonable people use to show that it isn’t. As that is simply, demonstrably, impossible I’ll stick to logic and reason and keep on doing my civic duty trying to de-program believers.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

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

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    So you are saying the comment by Jz29549: “puny litlle [sic] human brain and corrupt heart” isn’t “name calling” or “low brow” but calling that person “rude and ignorant” is.
    Thank you for perhaps one of the best examples of the hypocrisy of the religious.
    And you people wonder why we don’t respect you or your belief system.

  • http://betterthangod.wordpress.com/ Unindoctrinated

    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.

21