Just as an observation here that will probably be too high up the intellectual ladder for most users here to get, but years ago when India joined the nuclear club, some comedian made jokes about being worried that people who believed in reincarnation now had "the bomb".

Personally I think that by and large believing in reincarnation would make someone less likely to use nuclear weapons than someone who believed in the christian afterlife.

After all, a christian believes he's not coming back to earth and is supposedly going to heavan, especially if he dies fighting the "godless commies". Let's not forget that the mottot of the 1950's american right, when it came to nuclear war, was "Better dead than red!"

Now, someone who believes in reincarnation might believe that if he used nuclear weapons to make earth a poisoned hell, he might be fated to reincarnate and live on it as karmic justice.

So, who's more likely to use nukes?

Quote from: James McMurrayHow many EULAs have you read?

Clever, but it is different by an order of magnitude. If I thought my immortal soul was on the line, I would read very carefully indeed.

Quote from: James McMurrayNope, not even most Christians read their own scriptures.

Quite correct. If most christians knew what their scriptures really said they'd be outraged. For example, christianity forbids women to teach, hold power or speak freely. ("I do not allow a woman to teach or hold power over men. She must be silent.") So this keeps women from running for office as christians.

It also allows fathers to sell their daughters into marriage sans the daughter's consent.

It decrees that eating shellfish is "an abomination". (Quick, go burn down the nearest red loster restraunt in the name of god!)

Wearing clothing made from two fabrics is forbidden in the bible.

Most christians think jesus breought peace. But he openly said that he did not bring peace but a sword. He also decreed that people should and must love him more than their own parents, and that it was better to love him and hate your parents than to love your parents as you loved him.

Like youn said, most christians have zero idea what's really in the bible.

Most of the prohibitions you're quoting are Jewish, and your reading and interpretation of them would that of a very dumb and ill-educated Jew. The understanding in Christianity is that Jesus forms a new covenant that supercedes the older covenants. There's a big debate in Christianity about what is superceded and what isn't.

It should also be pointed out that most Christians are not fundamentalists. The kind of interpretation you are offering is fundamentalist in method, even if it directed against fundamentalists. You are unlikely to convince a Catholic, for example, that most of the prohibitions of Leviticus apply to him because the Church has decided that the vast majority of them don't (with doctrinal support from St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.). Considering that Catholicism remains the largest community of Christians in the world, an argument against "Christianity" that simply doesn't apply to it has significant problems.

What Pseudoephedrine said, with the addition that the vast majority of the world's Christians believe the Bible to be product of the Church rather than the other way around.  A quick read of the front-piece of a modern translation of the Bible (where the editors talk outline the thinking that went into deciding which manuscripts to use and how to translate them) should be enough to convince you of that

Dominus, are you aware that the Bible describes the ideal woman as (among other things) educated, financially idependant, making land deals and running a business.  As far as whoever wrote Proverbs 31 is concerned this isn't just things that are permitted for women, these are things that women should be doing

In the passage, that begins "I do not allow..." Paul is describing his practice at that time.  Given that later in his career he's sending greetings to women in positions of authority in the church it appears that he changed his mind

GRIM: just because someone doesn't match your prejudices about how a Christian should behave doesn't necessarily mean they're not a Christian.  It could just mean that your prejudices are clouding your judgement

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonGRIM: just because someone doesn't match your prejudices about how a Christian should behave doesn't necessarily mean they're not a Christian.  It could just mean that your prejudices are clouding your judgement

Oh I don't genuinely expect people to ACTUALLY follow the tenets, laid out in black and white, of their faith. I just haven't decided whether that's because I think better of humanity overall (They have more sense) or worse (They don't bother to understand what they decide to call themselves).

There's a whole host of excuses given for not following levitical laws, the usual one being 'Jesus did away with all that' which doesn't actually follow if you read the New Testament, but what the hell.

All it does really is help prove my point. Here's this 'divine word of god' or 'inspirational text' but people are reading it entirely selectively based upon their own ideas of what is right or wrong, reinforcing their own prejudices, cherrypicking that which they believe in and that which they don't - varying from person to person, some do take it literally. All that shows to me is that they're making their moral, spiritual and other choices seperate to their cultural religion and then squeezing the religion to fit their viewpoint, massaging the two together.

And I suppose the ideal woman stuff, contradicted elsewhere, makes up for the rape, murder and sacrifice common elsewhere eh?
What about Judges 19?
What about Genesis?
What about 1 Tim 2:12-14?
Gen 3:16
1 Cor 11:3
1 Cor 11:9
Eph 5:22-24
Deut 21:10-14, 24:1-4; Judges 5:30; Esther 1:20-22; Rom 7:2; 1 Col 3:18; Titus 2:4-5; 1 Peter 3:1; Lev 12:2, 5; Gen 3:20

And on and on and on.

Quote from: GRIMOh I don't genuinely expect people to ACTUALLY follow the tenets, laid out in black and white, of their faith.

Genuine question - what do you think the "tenets, laid out in black and white" of my faith are?

Quote from: GRIMThere's a whole host of excuses given for not following levitical laws, the usual one being 'Jesus did away with all that' which doesn't actually follow if you read the New Testament, but what the hell.

I'm assuming here that you're talking about Matthew 5:17-20, right?

Quote"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

But this was said by a guy who not only routinely broke Levitical law, but encouraged others to do the same.  So there's a tension here, an apparent contradiction and it's in the middle of a sermon where he's laying out a moral standard that is actually higher and harder to follow than the Levitical law ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.").  Now, if you're interested, we can talk about this apparent contradiction and we can talk about what kind of "great moral teacher" would set a moral standard that no-one can follow.  Or you can dismiss the whole thing as bollocks.  Your choice

Quote from: GRIMWhat about Judges 19?

Judges 19-21? A truely fucked up folk tale.  When was it set? "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."?

Quote from: GRIMWhat about Genesis?

What about it? It's a long book - you're going to need to be a bit more specific

Quote from: GRIMWhat about 1 Tim 2:12-14?

I think I just addressed that passage

Quote from: GRIMGen 3:16
Gen 3:20

Oh, it's this bit of Genesis, right?  I'm missing the significance of verse 20, but verse 16 is part of God's curse to Adam and Eve.  Anyone who tries to use it to support male dominance over females really ought to be growing all his own food.  Or you can read it as saying that male dominance is as much as a consequence of the Fall as death is - and both were defeated by Jesus's death and ressurection

Quote from: GRIM1 Cor 11:3
1 Cor 11:9

The first half of 1 Corinthians 11 makes no sense to anyone - seriously.  I mean WTF does he mean by "because of the angels"? In verse 11, he seems to be advocating equality between the sexes and in verse 13 he seems to be asking the reader to check his reasoning.  Well I have and I don't see a problem with a man praying while wearing a hat and if Paul wants to convince me he's going to have to come up with something better than arguing from "the nature of things."

Quote from: GRIMEph 5:22-24

That passage starts at verse 21

Quote from: GRIMDeut 21:10-14

"My mother made me promise to stick to the looting and pillaging until I found a nice girl."

Quote from: GRIMDeut 24:1-4

Regulation of divorce law.  As good as, if not better than anything else that was around at the time

Quote from: GRIMJudges 5:30

You know, I hadn't noticed this part of the Song of Deborah before, thanks for pointing it out to me.  Looks like there's going to be some weddings in the next few days

Quote from: GRIMEsther 1:20-22

I have no idea what your point is here.  Xerxes was neither a Christian or a Jew

Quote from: GRIMRom 7:2

What's your point here?

Quote from: GRIM1 Col 3:18

I assume you mean Col 3:18.  Same context as Eph 5

Quote from: GRIMTitus 2:4-5

"Subject" does not imply unconditional obedience

Quote from: GRIM1 Peter 3:1

Same context as Eph 5 and if you actually knew your Bible rather than C&Ping some stuff you found on a website you'd be throwing verse 7 at me

Quote from: GRIMLev 12:2, 5

Ritual purity laws and less harsh towards women than many tribal peoples of that time.  Of only historic interest for Christians

Have you heard of the idea of "progressive revelation"? The idea that as humanity develops, God reveals more about Himself and how he wants humanity to live?

With the OT stuff, God is dealing with a tribal people who have to be told that personal hygine is a Good Thing and sacrificing children is a Bad Thing.  The Levitical code is an improvement on what they had before.

With the NT stuff, those passages where written by a recovering religious fanatic who never married and a barely literate fisherman, who, if he ever married, any wife died quite young and he never re-married.  Neither of them are Germaine Greer.  You seem to be expecting them to be, which seems rather unfair to me.

Interesting that you couldn't find any of Jesus's words to support your thesis that Christianity is inherently misogynistic...

What about Luke 3:7 - And then I said unto her, wash my feet bitch! And lo, we were married and had us some chiluns, mainly to freak out the Christians 2,000 years from now.

How is that not misogynistic?

Quote from: James McMurrayWhat about Luke 3:7 - And then I said unto her, wash my feet bitch! And lo, we were married and had us some chiluns, mainly to freak out the Christians 2,000 years from now.

Luke 3:7?

"John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"

Well thank you for reminding me of that verse, but I can't see how it is pertinent to our present discussion.

:haw:

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonBut this was said by a guy who not only routinely broke Levitical law, but encouraged others to do the same.  So there's a tension here, an apparent contradiction and it's in the middle of a sermon where he's laying out a moral standard that is actually higher and harder to follow than the Levitical law ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.").  Now, if you're interested, we can talk about this apparent contradiction and we can talk about what kind of "great moral teacher" would set a moral standard that no-one can follow.  Or you can dismiss the whole thing as bollocks.  Your choice

Well, if you're comfortable having a public discussion about your bollocks

Quote from: GRIMWell, if you're comfortable having a public discussion about your bollocks

Forking the thread

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonLuke 3:7?

"John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"

Well thank you for reminding me of that verse, but I can't see how it is pertinent to our present discussion.

:haw:

Ur bible's busted, son. Check my post for the real text. I know it's true, a professor on wikiedia vouched fer it.