cant stand religion bashers

You missed the bit about pinning the servant to the door, then?

And killing people who worship other gods?

If an injunction to kill people who curse their parents isn't a call to violence (and for a trivial reason) then I don't know what is.

No, I didn't. You again confuse ancient cruelty and calls to violence

I can say you even more: ancient jewish communities didn't permit gay parades. It's disgusting, isn't it?

According to your logic the decalog also calls to violence, because the commandment "Honor your mother and father" preceeds the commandment "You shall not murder" and consequently is more important.

Sorry I didn’t realise you asked me more than the first.

What would happen if everybody follow my advise? Basically what you’re implying is that if everyone followed my advise there would be anarchy? I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of it but there is something called the Law which defines our rights in society so that we can do what we like in an equal and fair manner that it doesn’t affect others. Those who don’t abide by the law are punished.

What if the rich followed my advise and resulted in what you have said? Revolution, that’s what democracy is about.I never said religion caused all the problems you state, I was saying religion puts barriers in the way of your decisions based on the religious doctrine which will adversely affect the experiences you can have in your life.

Also because of the inconsistencies in the Bible you cannot trust any of it. Genesis claims God created the earth and the heavens and then he created light (the sun). This is obviously written by someone who wasn’t aware of how the Universe works, e.g a man (not the word of God) alive before the 14th century. The Copernican revolution proved that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around so Genesis should start something like first God created the Universe, then the sun, then the earth and the planets otherwise it doesn’t make sense. If you can’t trust the first few lines of the bible how can you trust any of it, even if it has somehow predicted future events. If you throw enough **** some of it will stick.

The comedic value of this statement is difficult to overstate.

So you are now claiming that your god is not omnipotent after all. You will have to make your mind up one day.

This reversion to claiming faith is all-important is ridiculous. It is the very thing that proves that the religion is derived from charlatanism - the emperor's new clothes.

The question is not does God exist? According to the bible, the answer is obvious

So you think the inconsistency in Genesis is the order in which the bible says God made the Sun, the earth and the planets? Why is the order stated in the bible implausible? How specifically does it not make sense? I mean, we're talking about a supernatural being creating these things from nothing... I would have thought that makes no sense. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Also because of the inconsistencies in the Bible you cannot trust any of it. Genesis claims God created the earth and the heavens and then he created light (the sun). This is obviously written by someone who wasn’t aware of how the Universe works, e.g a man (not the word of God) alive before the 14th century. The Copernican revolution proved that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around so Genesis should start something like first God created the Universe, then the sun, then the earth and the planets otherwise it doesn’t make sense. If you can’t trust the first few lines of the bible how can you trust any of it, even if it has somehow predicted future events. If you throw enough **** some of it will stick.

You asked for a commandment that calls for violence. I gave you several.

I can't help it if you choose to obey only a few of the laws that are several thousand years old, hold them to reverence even, and illogically ignore all the others your god handed down at the same time.

Why do you dismiss some as being disgusting and ancient but hold the others sacred? They come from the same source, at the same time, and none is time limited.

And no one of them calls for violence.

It's about understanding biblical text and historical background. That is important. How much violence can you find in Old Testament after the period of Moses? According to you, people adopting such religion should be blood thirsty beasts. Do ancient Jews or Jews today look like that? Is it applied to king David? Or maybe to king Solomon? Both were very religious.

You mean gay parades? It was sarcasm.

Your views do not stand up to my scrutiny. The bible stands up to my scrutiny.

It does not stand up to the scrutiny of anyone whose unconditional belief in it does not predate their attempts to 'scrutinise' it.

The text of the commandments calls for death or nailing people's ears to the door: you say this is not violence.

People can also use probability (Antony Flew) and logic (Descartes) and game theory (Pascal's Wager) to derive an existence of a god (or rather, a rational need to believe in one).

This assumes that something shouldn't be judged unless it's detrimental to somebody's well-being, and that judgement = intervention. I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.

Not in this particular parable, but the Bible is otherwise rife with plenty of non-hidden messages telling people to kill each other and commit acts of violence. The Bible doesn't seem to care about hiding its calls to violence.

You missed the bit about pinning the servant to the door, then? And killing people who worship other gods? If an injunction to kill people who curse their parents isn't a call to violence (and for a trivial reason) then I don't know what is.

How violent are the righteous in their insensitivity to what is civilized.

You can imagine in a time where persecution takes place, reading about "living by the sword" and "dying by the sword" would give courage to people to practice the art of pacifism, and the example of Jesus' death as inspiration to die as martyrs and be true to Christ's teachings.

Instead of trying to point out flaws, why cannot you consider the benefits of such scripture?

You may come to conclude that it is a really noble way to live by setting yourself moral goals and trying to live a good life.

Believing it is not, in itself a problem. Worthy of adverse judgement, yes, but not a problem.

It becomes a problem when, as is so often the case, people who believe it harm others by, for instance, indoctrinating their children to believe it or by insisting it should be taught as part of science or history courses in schools alongside science and history, as part of the creation hypothesis.

And this is a good thing in your view?

Because none of the so-called benefits are worth throwing away my ability to critique the dangerous nonsense perpetuated by such scripture. It's not a very good argument anyway to say that I shouldn't point out flaws 'just because.'

And I can't do this without scripture?