NEWS: Trading Bibles for Porn

originally posted by shakyaheir
What you fail to understand is that the theory of evolution and the theory of the big bang have much more empirical evidence (like the fact that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of the same DNA) to back them up then the theory presented in Genesis.

so, what your saying is that one unproven theory is better than another?

one little problem with your data: there is no link between the apes and man. find me the missing link, and it ceases to be theory and moves into the realm of fact, which will probably never happen. we can find almost every stage of ape, and almost every stage of human, but no link to put them together. kind of odd, dont you think?

furthermore, your data isnt entirely accurate. IOW, you arent telling us the full story:

But they suggest that our species may be more different from the great apes than previously thought: the differences between the chimp and human genomes is 10 times greater than that which occurs between any two humans, but 10 times less than the differences between the mouse and rat.

Today's findings show the genetic sequences of man and ape differ by only 1.2 per cent in terms of single-letter (base pair) changes to the genetic code, but duplications and rearrangements of larger stretches of DNA add a further difference of 2.7 per cent, report Dr Evan Eichler, of University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, and his colleagues.

"For all the talk of the 1.2 per cent single base-pair difference and the importance of those, there's even more difference between the species due to duplication events," said Dr Eichler.

source


edited for typos

[edit on 7-12-2005 by snafu7700]

on a side note....we are on page three of this discussion, which implies that it is noteworthy for this site, and yet it still hasnt become an actual story. just because you disagree with the writers assesment of the story is no reason to vote no...especially if you intend to contribute to the discussion (and no, i am not the writer).

djohnsto77 wrote:

Well at least in a religion like Christianity, the people who do this think they're saving the eternal soul of the people they try to convert. There's no such incentive to convert people to atheism.

And Atheists think that they're helping people stop making rash decisions based on the (mostly) distorted perception of the Bible that is presented by the modern media and modern religious groups.

Fact is, trying to coerce someone away from their personal beliefs is rude, inconsiderate, and a violation of personal rights. How would you feel if someone tried to convince you that your child/wife/pet/other person that's close to you wasn't worth loving? You'd feel insulted. That's the way I feel every time someone tries to convert me to their religion. I believe what I believe, and it's a very close, personal thing for me, as I feel all religion should be. It's something to be believed in, and held close to one's own heart. It's not something to be touted as a means to change the way other people percieve the world, start wars, create laws, and remove the science from the scientific community.

I'm not going to take sides in this debate, however, anyone who has really studied theology understands that as the stories in the Bible were told again and again, and passed through word of mouth, they changed with each new interpretation. As it has been translated and retranslated over the years, printed in perpetual new editions, and constantly revised by each sect of Christianity, it has changed greatly. The teachings of the Bible are also open to a great deal of personal interpretation. Fact is, through this 2000 year old game of "Telephone" that the Bible has been through, we have no clue what it originally stated. For all we know, the original Golden Rule simply stated, "drink beer and eat cheetos."

This is the point of most Atheists and Agnostics - essentially, we can't use the Bible as a true tool of faith, because it has been so warped, distorted, and changed over the years that we can't really ever determine it's original wording or meaning. Faith lies solely on the shoulders of the faithful, and no outside source can really be trusted to be correct.

Watch the film "Dogma"... it brings up a lot of good points regarding faith and religion, and even though it's a ficticious film that simply deals with religious themes, there's a lot of valid real-world advice in it.

FlyersFan wrote:

And yes, I subscribe to the thought that atheism IS a religion.
It USED to be said to be a way of thought ... but I believe it
is a religion for many and it has followers.

Yes, it is a religion. The simplest definition of religion is a series of beliefs based on faith. Just as Christians have faith in their belief in God, Atheists have faith in their belief that there's nothing out there.

It's all religion from where I stand.

snafu7700 wrote:

maybe you could provide a link that proves darwin correct while youre at it? last time i checked, it was still a theory with no data to prove it correct.

how about some proof that the big bang happened? more unproven theory.

how about any proof at all of how this universe and all of its matter was formed without a supreme being?

Regarding Darwinian theory, there is scientific evidence to support it, yet there is (and may never be) any outright proof.

The Big Bang - once again, scientific evidence supports it (and other scientific evidence goes against the theory).

The last point you make - there is no scientific evidence to support it one way or the other.

Fact is, many scientific theories fall under the jurisdiction of faith just as much as any religion does. Science itself has often been referred to as a religion, and in some regards it is. The religion of science, however, is more often based on faith in inconclusive scientific evidence that supports a theory, rather than a single religious text that most likely differs wildly from the original stories. It is up to a person to choose their faith in this regard.

Personally, I think that in the long run, science will win out.


And finally, to wrap this up, my own thoughts on this. More than anything, this is a publicity stunt. It's a group of college students who wish to encourage people to take a second look at their religious beliefs, and the text that founds those beliefs. Most Christians, and furthermore most religious people in general, don't really understand their religion, and rather follow and believe what they are told in regards to it. Now, this isn't a steadfast rule, as several of the religious people on this site have proven, but it does apply to a large number of religious people. The number of religious debates I have entered into (I find debating religion can be quite enlightening, so long as there's no attempt at conversion, only at understanding), and self-proclaimed "devout Christians" were lost in the debate within a few minutes when I simply mentioned a few of the slightly obscure points of Christianity. To quote "Dogma" for a moment, "Speak the name of the voice of God, and she looks at you like you have two heads, but then refer to something from a Charleton Heston film, and suddenly everyone's a theology expert." That statement holds a lot of truth.

Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, no matter how much anyone else may disagree with them. The point that you finally step over that line is when you try to force your personal beliefs onto another person. I hold this belief true for EVERYONE, regardless of religion or lack thereof. I'm just as offended by an Atheist trying to convert me as I am by a Christian trying to convert me, as I am by a Jew or Muslim trying to convert me. It doesn't matter to me what you practice. Just practice it, live by it, and don't push it on others.

snafu..
in other words, kill both the adulterers, not just the woman

Why do you feel the need to rephrase it in other words?

If no-one heard her cry (other than the rapist), then she did not cry as far as the absurdly arbitrary law decreed. Let scripture interpret scripture, and let the dead bury the dead.

Timothy 4 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 7Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.


1 Peter 4:3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.


And we wonder why we can't find a cure for Aids. Don't believe what they tell you it is God's creation not man's



[edit on 8-12-2005 by Graystar]

Trying to get people to swap there bible for porn is abursed.
Why dosnt the group of athiests present facts that undermine the mass delusions that the religious right are attempting to subject America to?
Why not fight the dumbing down of society?

There is no shortage of topics.
Evolution vs mass delusions.
Womens right to contraception.
Athiests and any common sense freedom loving people have to win the war against the dumbing down of society.

Trying to get people to swap there bible for porn is abursed.
Why dosnt the group of athiests present facts that undermine the mass delusions that the religious right are attempting to subject America to?
Why not fight the dumbing down of society?

Agreed. They don't present the facts because most college kids won't just sit and listen to some athiest preach to them. So they decided to use a quick fix, porn. Because most college kids will open their ears if it involves porn, which is pretty sad.

originally posted by spamandham
Why do you feel the need to rephrase it in other words?

well, maybe because other posters have shown a propensity to misinterpret what the passages actually say? like the poster a couple of pages back who decided the woman's cry in the passage was supposed to be a cry of pleasure.

i'm sorry, but where i see ignorance, i correct it. and when i see a tendency to misinterpret passages, i try to make it as clear as possible. i'm sorry that my thoroughness annoys you.

I don't view your redaction as thoroughness. I view it as an attempt to make the Bible say what you want it to say rather than what it actually says.

What it actually says is that the woman should be killed if she was raped and didn't scream, whereas you are trying to make it sound like the passage is just referring to consentual adultery.

why dont you go back and actually read the passage, including verse 25, which you have conveniently left out.

first of all, it is saying that consentual adultery is to be punished by death.

second, however you wish to interpret the laws, you and alot of others have completely missed the original point.

the old testament and it's laws are the old covenant. the new covenant through the blood of jesus is described in the new testament.

jesus actually contridicts these old jewish laws in the NT. "he who is without sin cast the first stone." why do you think the pharisees had him executed? because he threatened their power base by contradicting their laws. christianity is based on the new testament, not the old, a fact that is conveniently ignored by those who wish to show how horrible christian belief is.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by snafu7700]

Obsidian468
Fact is, trying to coerce someone away from their personal beliefs is rude, inconsiderate, and a violation of personal rights.

While true, no such coersion is taking place in this case. Porn-for-Bibles is a voluntary program. They're not even knocking on doors, leaving tracts, or pestering people at dinner. It's just a table set up with a sign on it.

Coersion is when you use force. An example of coersion is using the force of law to promote your agenda, like say, blue laws.

Obsidian468
Yes, it is a religion. The simplest definition of religion is a series of beliefs based on faith. Just as Christians have faith in their belief in God, Atheists have faith in their belief that there's nothing out there.

No faith is required to fail to accept the idea of magic invisible sky people. By this absurd standard, those who don't believe in fairies are thus members of the religion of afairyism. By the way, you're overdue on your tithes.

It's a-theism, not athe-ism.

I suppose if enough people agree atheism is a religion, we could start signing up for faith based charitable funding.

Seriously though, you start off talking about how people shouldn't go around offending eachother only to dish out one of the greatest insults possible, which is to lump disbelief in with the nonsense of religion.

why dont you go back and actually read the passage, including verse 25, which you have conveniently left out.

It was "conveniently" left out because it isn't relevant. The determination of whether or not it was consentual is based entirely on whether or not someone heard the woman scream. v 25 simply recognizes that such a standard doesn't make any sense if they're out in a field where no-one could hear the scream. I say such a standard doesn't make sense at all.

But you seem to be missing the other half of the point, which is, the death penalty for adultery. I'm amazed you don't find that repugnant.

the old testament and it's laws are the old covenant. the new covenant through the blood of jesus is described in the new testament.

blah blah human sacrifice fricken blah. This is all just mumbo jumbo. I don't buy into your disgusting human sacrifice theology, nor does it in any way diminish the wretchedness of the Old Testament.

If the OT is no longer applicable, why are you off arguing in favor of a magic boat that somehow carried 100,000,000 animals, who magically found their own way there (BTW, kangaroos are not good swimmers)?

christianity is based on the new testament, not the old, a fact that is conveniently ignored by those who wish to show how horrible christian belief is.

This thread is about the smut for smut program. They are trading porn for Bibles/Korans/etc, nothing more. That you perceive such a program as an assault on Christianity is a personal problem.

originally posted by spamandham

It was "conveniently" left out because it isn't relevant. The determination of whether or not it was consentual is based entirely on whether or not someone heard the woman scream. v 25 simply recognizes that such a standard doesn't make any sense if they're out in a field where no-one could hear the scream. I say such a standard doesn't make sense at all.

and i continue to disagree with your interpretation of the passages. i believe that the law is making a differentiation between consentual adultery and rape, and here's why.

the OT is full of references to jewish law. you cant just take one passage and say "aha! see, they say you have to kill her because she didnt scream loud enough!" you have to cross-reference that particular passage with other excerpts of the law to clarify. for instance,

lev 20:10
the man who commits adultery with another mans wife, he who commits adultery with his nieghbors wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. their blood shall be upon them.

no mention of crying out.

and if you look further in deuteronomy, you will find that they further clarify that a woman who is not consentual cries out for help.

deut 22
26 but you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin worthy of death. for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.

27 for he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but again, i humbly disagree.

But you seem to be missing the other half of the point, which is, the death penalty for adultery. I'm amazed you don't find that repugnant.

i never said that i didnt. in fact, i believe i pointed out that jesus himself disagreed with the death penalty for adultery in john 8:5-7, which shows you the difference between the old jewish laws of the old covenant, and the word of jesus under the new covenant. i was trying to show that i believe other interpretations of these verses by some posters of this thread to be wrong. again, if you see it differently, that is your perogative.

blah blah human sacrifice fricken blah.

you know, childish responses like this really take the legs out from under any valid arguments you might actually have.

This is all just mumbo jumbo. I don't buy into your disgusting human sacrifice theology, nor does it in any way diminish the wretchedness of the Old Testament.

would you mind showing me which verses include the human sacrifice you are refering to? because i know of no human sacrifice in either the OT or the NT, with the exception, of course, of jesus's sacrifice for all of us.

If the OT is no longer applicable, why are you off arguing in favor of a magic boat that somehow carried 100,000,000 animals, who magically found their own way there (BTW, kangaroos are not good swimmers)?

did i ever say that i take every verse of the bible literally? could you show me where exactly i was arguing in favor of the validity of the noah's ark story? the OT is full of really good stories that make a valid point in some religious aspect. in actual point of fact, one of the main reasons for its inclusion in the christian bible is that all of the prophecies proving jesus is, indeed, the messiah can be found there.

This thread is about the smut for smut program. They are trading porn for Bibles/Korans/etc, nothing more. That you perceive such a program as an assault on Christianity is a personal problem.

did you actually read this before you posted it? smut for smut? how am i not, as a christian, supposed to be offended by that? the basis for their program is their assertation that all religions are ignorant garbage. that is a claim that i am going to refute every time, and therefore my comments are perfectly valid to this thread. if they werent, dont you think a mod would have come in and scolded me by now?


[edit on 8-12-2005 by snafu7700]

Im sorry if i offend anyone, but seriously dont you see the humour in this?
All the point they are trying to make is, the bible is jsut smut like porn. We would rather let people look at naked women than corrupt their moral selfs, with religious dogmas.
Good on the uni students

originally posted by wang
We would rather let people look at naked women than corrupt their moral selfs, with religious dogmas.

i think the ignorance of this remark speaks for itself.

Its one thing to have your beliefs, but another to tempt others out of their current faith with this trash.

These students are bringing attention to themselves, but its the 'traditionalists' that've declared on the radio-waves and television and in print that there is a 'kulturkampf' in america now. Can't expect to not have shots fired from the people being shot at. If the bible's going to be used to promote political and social agendas, well, then its gotta be expected that other people are going to use it for political and social agendas also.

Wretched, Disgusting, Smut. Three more doozies to add to Spamandham's endless list of religious villification, which is a crime in many countries yet goes on without warning on ATS. What gets me is YOU HAVE CALLED THE KORAN SMUT. Salmin Rushdie still doesn't get out and about much for a reason. Good luck to you.

snafu7700
i never said that i didnt. in fact, i believe i pointed out that jesus himself disagreed with the death penalty for adultery in john 8:5-7...

There you go. Even your god recognized the repugnant nature of the scriptures.

snafu7700
would you mind showing me which verses include the human sacrifice you are refering to? because i know of no human sacrifice in either the OT or the NT, with the exception, of course, of jesus's sacrifice for all of us.

That's the one I'm talking about. I won't bother getting into Abraham not batting an eye when asked to kill his son, or Jephthah sacrificing his daughter, or Leviticus 27:28-29.

You are looking at the Bible from a Christian perspective where Jesus "fulfilled" all the nasty stuff away. I am looking at the Bible as a whole, and from a secular perspective. I do not recognize the deity of Jesus, so his claim to have "fulfilled" away the old testament rubbish doesn't hold water. From a secular perspective, the book as a whole is repugnant and nonsensical.

snafu7700
did i ever say that i take every verse of the bible literally? could you show me where exactly i was arguing in favor of the validity of the noah's ark story?

I inferred it from you almost immediately trying to drag this thread into another evolution debate. If you don't accept that rediculous story at face value, then I appologize.

snafu7700
in actual point of fact, one of the main reasons for its inclusion in the christian bible is that all of the prophecies proving jesus is, indeed, the messiah can be found there.

There aren't any. Early Christians took OT passages out of context after the fact and then invented stories to match as necessary to "prove" fulfillment of scriptures. Most of the so called prophecies come from Isaiah 53, which is a lamentation of the nation of Israel itself, not messianic prophecy. We're starting to stray off topic I think.

snafu7700
did you actually read this before you posted it? smut for smut? how am i not, as a christian, supposed to be offended by that?

I suspect you would be, because you can't seem to understand why someone who doesn't share your delusion would find the Bible to be worthy of the garbage heap. You keep trying to rationalize it in Christian terms, without realizing that such rationalizations implicitly presume that others already share your beliefs.

snafu7700
the basis for their program is their assertation that all religions are ignorant garbage.

I'm not sure that's accurate. I think they are slamming the sacred texts with this program, and not Christianity, Islam, etc. per se. The program to slam religions is on next months agenda.

Originally posted by spamandham
There you go. Even your god recognized the repugnant nature of the scriptures.

you keep making my point for me. christ's teachings are in direct conflict with the old testament laws of israel you are referring to. he preaches tolerance, love, and turning the other cheek. that is what christianity is about, not antiquated laws that even the jewish people themselves no longer use.

That's the one I'm talking about.

let see....the one youre talking about appears to be christ's sacrifice of his own body and blood to allow for the forgiveness of our sins...the greatest show of love the world has ever known. if you find that repulsive, so be it.

I won't bother getting into Abraham not batting an eye when asked to kill his son,

youre absolutely right. he did not bat an eye when asked to do god's will. funny thing though, youre leaving out the most important part: god stopped him from actually committing the act. his willingness alone to unquestioningly obey god's command was enough. you seem to have a bad habit of only telling us half the story. but that's ok, i have no problem continuing to fill in the blanks you like to leave.

on the subject of jephthah's daughter, however, you have taught me something new, which is one of the great things about this site...no matter how much you vehemently disagree with someone, if you keep an open mind you always seem to learn new stuff. at any rate, back to the point: it does, indeed, appear that he offered up his daughter in fullfillment of his promise to god. the difference being, of course, that abraham was a prophet and religious leader who talked to god and received verbal answers from him. jephthah was only a king, not a religious leader, and merely did what he felt was his obligation due to his vow to sacrifice the first thing that he saw when returning home, in return for god's protection in battle. quite gruesome, but it still does not take away from the fact that he did this under the old covenant. alot of the stories in the OT are simply jewish history, and should not be used as a definitive interpretation of the laws of israel. the new covenant under jesus would not have required such bloodshed. the new covenant requires only that you follow the teachings of christ, which are love, peace, and understanding, and trust in him with all your heart.

You are looking at the Bible from a Christian perspective where Jesus "fulfilled" all the nasty stuff away. I am looking at the Bible as a whole, and from a secular perspective. I do not recognize the deity of Jesus, so his claim to have "fulfilled" away the old testament rubbish doesn't hold water. From a secular perspective, the book as a whole is repugnant and nonsensical.

then you are looking at it in entirely the wrong way. the new testament is the story of jesus and his teaching...once again, the new covenant through his blood. the old covenant as expressed through jewish law in the old testament does not apply to christians, unless they have been specifically mentioned by jesus...ie, the ten commandments.

jesus didnt "fullfill" anything away. he gave us a way to move away from the ugliness. he is the fullfillment of prophecy as the messiah, but that does not change any of the ugly things that happened in the OT. what his sacrifice does is allow us to be forgiven of our sins and live clean, wholesome lives with the knowledge that by his blood we may join him in his everlasting kingdom. maybe if you could set aside your anger for a few minutes and actually read some of what he is saying to us, you might find some peace to replace that hatred in your heart. his words are really rather enlightening.

I inferred it from you almost immediately trying to drag this thread into another evolution debate. If you don't accept that rediculous story at face value, then I appologize.

IOW, you assumed that i was just another bible thumping conservative who takes the entire bible literally. you also assumed that i believe that the world was literally conceived in 7 days as we know them, ie 24 hour periods, which i dont. instead of assuming you know what i believe and basing your argument on those assumptions, why dont you just ask me, so you dont have to spend time pulling your foot out of your mouth.

There aren't any. Early Christians took OT passages out of context after the fact and then invented stories to match as necessary to "prove" fulfillment of scriptures.

that's a very interesting statement. especially considering that, as you must know, the old testament is a compilation of books from the jewish torah, which has not changed since well before the time of christ. as such, each prophecy regarding jesus can be found in either the OT or the torah.

I suspect you would be, because you can't seem to understand why someone who doesn't share your delusion would find the Bible to be worthy of the garbage heap. You keep trying to rationalize it in Christian terms, without realizing that such rationalizations implicitly presume that others already share your beliefs.

no, your wrong there. i understand that alot of people dont share my beliefs. that is their right. i have found that most non-believers are usually quite ignorant of the bible as a whole. not all, but most, which is why i try to correct the ignorance where i can. however, to say that a religious text that offers not only a history of the jewish people (however gruesome it might be), and the words of a peaceloving man that revolutionized the world as we know it (as well as being the way, the truth, and the light for believers) is only worthy of the garbage heap is complete and utter ignorance. much of what jesus has to say is in line with buddha, ghandi, and other pacifist minded leaders. do you also believe that books about these individuals should be tossed in the garbage heap? somebody else believed as you do....his name was adolf.

I'm not sure that's accurate. I think they are slamming the sacred texts with this program, and not Christianity, Islam, etc. per se. The program to slam religions is on next months agenda.

umm...slamming the religious texts that the religions are based upon is slamming the religions.

Originally posted by snafu7700
you keep making my point for me. christ's teachings are in direct conflict with the old testament laws of israel you are referring to. he preaches tolerance, love, and turning the other cheek. that is what christianity is about, not antiquated laws that even the jewish people themselves no longer use.

You don't seem to get it. I could care less what Christianity is about. This thread is about the Bible as a whole, not just the narrow minded Christian perspective of it. The antiquited laws of the Jews (as well as all the other nasty stories) are part of it. I don't buy your salvation theology, so this crp is still in there. How many times must that be said before you start paying attention?

Originally posted by snafu7700
let see....the one youre talking about appears to be christ's sacrifice of his own body and blood to allow for the forgiveness of our sins...the greatest show of love the world has ever known. if you find that repulsive, so be it.

Indeed I do. It's nauseating.

youre absolutely right. he did not bat an eye when asked to do god's will. funny thing though, youre leaving out the most important part: god stopped him from actually committing the act.

I don't find that part humorous. God plays games with people and rewards those who act without questioning whether or not the request might be coming from a demon or from the recesses of their own minds? All he cares about is mindless obedience? Hell is preferred over spending eternity with such a spitefull lunatic.

jephthah was only a king, not a religious leader, and merely did what he felt was his obligation due to his vow to sacrifice the first thing that he saw when returning home, in return for god's protection in battle. quite gruesome, but it still does not take away from the fact that he did this under the old covenant.

Please recall that I do not buy the old covenent/new covenant dichotemy. From my perspective, the Old Testament is still part of the Bible. I don't know why you find that so difficult to understand.

then you are looking at it in entirely the wrong way.

Says you. It's just a collection of religious books from my perspective - nothing more.

jesus didnt "fullfill" anything away. he gave us a way to move away from the ugliness.

chuckle... "fulfill" is the magic word Christians use to mean - "oh all that nasty crap in the OT doesn't appy any more even though it still applies. That's why gays are evil and we stiil require tithes, and even though we used to like slavery, now we don't, but please ignore the 10th commandment behind the curtain, and don't kill unless it's the messiah then it's fabulous and anyway spam you're going to hell so why am i wasting my time with you..."

maybe if you could set aside your anger for a few minutes and actually read some of what he is saying to us, you might find some peace to replace that hatred in your heart.

anger and hate? what the heck are you talking about? This is entertainment at it's finest.

I'm laughing my FAO reading your responses.

IOW, you assumed that i was just another bible thumping conservative who takes the entire bible literally. you also assumed that i believe that the world was literally conceived in 7 days as we know them, ie 24 hour periods, which i dont. instead of assuming you know what i believe and basing your argument on those assumptions, why dont you just ask me, so you dont have to spend time pulling your foot out of your mouth.

I already pulled it out and appologized. If you're wanting payola, you're going to be sorely disappointed I'm affraid. I'm not that sorry.

that's a very interesting statement. especially considering that, as you must know, the old testament is a compilation of books from the jewish torah, which has not changed since well before the time of christ. as such, each prophecy regarding jesus can be found in either the OT or the torah.

The words are certainly there, but they were not messianic prophecies, and other than the unreliable Gospels written long after the fact, there is no evidence that they were fulfilled at all. Read Isaiah 49. It sets the context. The chapters to follow were lamentations about the nation of Israel itself. Israel is explicitly explained to be the suffering servant. Why do you think the Jews did not accept Jesus? Did you think they just hated god or something?

however, to say that a religious text that offers not only a history of the jewish people (however gruesome it might be), and the words of a peaceloving man that revolutionized the world as we know it (as well as being the way, the truth, and the light for believers) is only worthy of the garbage heap is complete and utter ignorance. much of what jesus has to say is in line with buddha, ghandi, and other pacifist minded leaders.

It doesn't matter what Jesus said if it is lumped in with a bunch of nonsensical violent crap and blood sacrifice theology. If the OT does not apply, why don't Christians just toss it asside and call only the NT the Bible?

Regardless, the NT also teaches the subservience of women, maintains the master/slave language, and paints sex, drinking, and other "sins" that harm no-one not involved in a negative light. Arbitrary authoritarianism is disgusting as well.

do you also believe that books about these individuals should be tossed in the garbage heap? somebody else believed as you do....his name was adolf.

Hitler was a Christian a**hole. You've earned a permanent ignore.


[edit on 10-12-2005 by spamandham]