im not sure which part of the bible is that funny.

the bible is made of parables--stories. these ones are meant for us to learn from. so maybe the some of the events didnt actually happen but that doesnt make the bible a lie.

I agree completely.

And, she was correcting the mispelling of athiest...it'll be okay. lol

Also, regarding the whole Great Flood thing... I studied that for awhile, and there is a lot of evidence to support a great flood on the earth. It has to do with fossils, layers of the earth, etc. etc.

Presenting that evidence along with the claim might be useful.
Aside from that, the idea of a historical reading of the great flood in genesis has died out of mainstream science and geology during the mid 19th century. Many geological discoveries proposed serious problems to the theory. Also, a great flood seemed to call for the suspension of several basic physical laws, which natural science doesn't exactly allow.

Without a reasonable water source for such a flood, and a way to get rid of such vast amounts of water the theory easily becomes laughable.

Archaeological evidence does not fit with flood geology in that man-made artifacts that are rather dense are found significantly high up in the sedimentary layers. Flood geologists explain away fossil placement, and sedimentary layers by claiming that the rushing water somehow sorted these rocks, and fossils either deeper or near to the surface pertaining to the density of the objects caught in the flood. If this were to, the more dense the object, the deeper we would find it. However, this isn't always true and is easily disputed with everyday archaeological findings. It may also be important to point to the construction involved in forming the pyramids of Egypt. If a flood actually occured during common times noted by flood geologists, we would most likely not have the pyramids today.

The fossil record is also alarmingly scarce if it truly was created by a global flood.

The Bible is super silly.

i believe religion is an organization driven to control the masses.
Usually the teachings in holy scriptures are bullsh*t.

hEllo? giant/global flood? Archaeological evidence? there are 3924923493294932949294923942949239492394 evidences, C.L.E.A.R that was 3949239429492394992394923499 giant/global floods, from the first second when Earth came to life, who can possible know when was "that one" and wich one, is "the one" described in Bible or any other "story" like those ? when they can't even find "Atlantida" LoL, they move from continent to continent where they find something "similar" to some of those "stories" LoL! wanna know what's this ? waste of time and lots of money gained, that's all ;-)

I have a simple question, who belives that Draculla (The Drake, The Don, The Prince, The Blood Sucker, The Vampire, The Whatever the movies named him), real name Vlad Tepes (popular nickname Vlad Dracul) Drac = Evil/Devil (Drake) ever existed? as you saw in movies or even anything related ?

If the Bible was accurate in presenting the Great Flood on earth, then saying we wouldn't have pyramids today is silly. If you keep reading past Genesis into Exodus, (which is the time of Moses in Egypt) that is when the Israelites were slaves to Pharaoh. What were they doing? Building pyramids. That argument can't even be used here.

ok firstly to set some things straight, even if they've been said before.

What you're talking about, I know it as Noah's Ark...

also, for anyone who says, or thinks the bible is bullsh!t...if it's so bullsh!t then why do you think there's so many catholics?

ugh I can't be bothered with the rest so I'll just go on and make my point

Stating the obvious, as I always do, nobody can really say what is bs from what is not. If you've read the bible, don't agree with it then fine, don't, that's your choice, nobody is asking you to be catholic, and to be honest, nobody really has the right to call is bs. To me, this debate is, in a sense, pointless, because no matter weather at the end we decide weather its bs or not, a debate won't verify the myseries of religeon. Nobody can. I don't care if I offend you by saying this but please don't try to convert anyone to being catholic, it's unfair, if they want to be catholic, they will be, and "god" will guide them there, or whatever he does.
As said before, JESUS WAS A JEW. The jewish religeon was around way before christianity.

And one other thing, while I can bother to type it, I'm not going to reflect my own beliefs on what I'm saying, this is just reasoning. If it comes across as if I am, say so because I'll want to think it over in a non biast(sp?) fashion.

So anyways, addictedtofire (and I'm not going to even bother putting in all the numbers and sh!t but I must refrain from saying anything offending that is aimed directly towards particular people) correct me if I've mistaken what you've said but,


what makes you think the jews wern't first. Also, from what I've read nobody called you atheist. like I said above and it has been said before, jesus was a jew.

and


wind&fire, you REALLY, SERIOUSLY are starting to p!ss me off. I hate when people say that their religeon, whatever that may be IS true. What proof do you have, and while there may be proof, it's the same for ALL religeons/belief systems. Unless you are "god" or whatever you don't KNOW.

to be honest, if you think you're religeon or whatever IS true, no doubt about it, nobody can argue back because it IS, quite definately(sp?) ture.
GO GET A LIFE and more education. Just because you say it's true, have proof, experienced whatever, god talks to you or WHATEVER, theres probably hundreds of people out there that feel the same way about their religeon, just because blah blah blah, doesn't mean it IS true. if anybody truely knew the truth do you think there would be so many religeons in the world? if this person KNEW, then he would have to have evidence that is undenyable(sp?), that anyone can see or whatever. And I think I've said before, don't convert people to your religeon, what exactly, makes it so great that it's better than any other religeon, you can't tell someone what to believe, and while making them read things and whatnot may convert them, you can't take away their true beliefs, it's called brainwashing.

so anyways, back on topic,



the use of the word probably makes me assume you have no idea. Well guess what, neither do I but it wasn't just a group of people, I think it was these people that knew jesus, and I'm NOT SURE so anyone that know please correct me but it wasn't all written at once, I assume one person wrote a bit, and another person wrote another bit then maybe archaeoligists or something found all the parts and put it together. To be honest I can't see that happening, so for now, I'm going to have to say you're probably right. Although, I read somewhere a while ago that there was this original extract fromt he bible and blah blah, which is saying there is an original bible. Although who is to say it genuine? And no, I'm not denying it's truth.
There are fault with the bible and whatever, but to the best of my knowledge it was written in hebrew or something, whatever relevance that has. There could still be major parts of the bible still to be found. By the way, they have yet to find with ark. So back to what I was saying, it could be that people are readin the bible and jumping to conclusions, because, I'm sure there are infinite different ways to read, digest, and understand a passage of text, nevermind a whole book. Also, someone said something along these lines to me once which made me think so I think I'll share it with ya.
She said that maybe our minds arn't -looks for right word- designed(?) to think about the world the way it really is...
so what I make from that is that maybe she's right, and I personally agree with her, maybe out minds arn't "designed" to think in the manner needed to solve the whole ongoing arguement as to which religeon is true. Could it be that all of them are, in a way, true, they have to have came from somewhere right? Also, do you think that maybe "god" didn't want us to truely know weather he exists or not. If there is a "god" I can only imagine him as being very smart, and since he/she would be out creator, we cannot therefore become wiser/smarter than he is. I get the feeling that if catholicism is correct, everything would be planned out, all perfectly times and in order, no matter how much we disagre, becuase that would be god's intentions. On the other hand I'm not catholic...
Have you ever thought though that maybe, just maybe there isn't anything out there, that when we die we are just that, dead. No after life, heaven or hell or anything, nothing. That the whole religeous "lark" is all a load of codswallop(sp?). Think about it, while we're all waiting on scientists having the answer they already thing they do, i think...anyways, I'm talking about the whole big band theory. So yeah, maybe we're argueing over, quite litrally, nothing. And does it even matter, can't we just live the life we're given and not have to worry about anything?

thats not real evidence.

besides, catholicism is almost its own separate relgion...its so different from christianity.

almost every religion describes a flood that covers the world. it may have been the gilgamesh that was first, but this scenario is in many many religions.



yes, the hieroglyphics in egypt do show that the israelites were enslaved, besides documents found that support this conclusion.

but what does this have to do with noah's ark exactly? many religions have fabricated stories in order to make the followers fear the wrath of god.

The time line of the Bible often becomes a controversy with historians, paleontologists, geologists, archaeologists, and any other scientist involved in history sciences. They just don't match.

Also, it would be important to note that no significant historical record of a man named Moses exists outside of the Bible. Also, the Israelites were slaves to the Pharaoh? Good luck trying to find a single document outside of the Bible which suggests such a thing. Jewish migration into and out of Egypt is very well recorded. Nothing suggests that an entire Jewish people were enslaved, forced to labor, freed by a miracle of God and Moses, and then marched in the desert for years.

No evidence from any field is found. Yet, if such a thing did indeed happen, evidence would be expected. Still, none if found.

EDIT:

I'm sorry, but I do believe that you are sorely mistaken. If you can find some documentation though, that would be fantastic. I would love to look at it.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Egypt)

most major religions have a flood story so someone tell me which one is the real one? Who are the real chosen people of god? Any Answers?

I don't really see the point of attacking the religious beliefs of others. Who cares if another's religious beliefs are right or wrong? Religion isn't something based in fact; any religious person will tell you they believe because of faith, not evidence.

Furthermore, do facts really matter in this case? Religion is so powerful that it shapes the way people live their lives; does it really matter whether everything they believe is factual or not? They believe it and live their lives with it, no matter what.

One is not likely to change a man's mind by attacking his religion; and who cares if he believes something different, anyway? As long as his spiritual life does not encroach upon mine, I don't much care what he believes.

michael..you manage to say everything im thinking...and make it sound more intelligent.

religion isnt based on fact. those that believe in it have faith in it, meaning that they dont need any factual proof to instill their beliefs.

Well, there could be any number of reasons given any number of situations. Alternative medicine, pseudoscience, discrimination, sexism, prejudice, baseless claims, false hopes, mutual communication, progression.

In most cases, it isn't so much an attack, as it is a reavaluation. An examiniation of vigor into the things human beings believe, and why they believe them. Not only is this important to understanding human nature, it is also important to a progressive out-look on mankind in general.

If an idea does not sit right with some, it is best to examine their case against the idea which is under scrutiny. We should communicate our issues in hopes of opening minds, growing, understanding, and respecting each other.

It would not be so progressive to call names and poke fun; resorting to ad hominem arguments. Although, I admit to doing such things on occasion, I more than often present well thoughtout objections. I welcome thought and discussion. I want to understand where others are coming from, and for others to understand where I am coming from.

If anything, you should understand the potential to human growth any form of debate presents.



Those who believe in the first place. Those who do not believe. Most intellectualy honest individuals have a great care for whether or not what they believe is true. Right or wrong.

Given an enviroment where contrary beliefs are held by many different people, the truth value of your specific belief, in comparison with others, often becomes even more important. You have to justify your belief in face of contrary positions.



That is a hasty generalization. The truth of the matter is that there are many different people who hold many different beliefs for a variety of reasons. I have met a great number of religious individuals who hold that their position is supported by evidence and is the most reasonable thing to believe. I have met Christians who adamently despise those fellow Christians who believe in blind faith. Many religious people require and demand evidence for their beliefs.

Belief in the face of contrary or insufficient evidence is faith. Even those Christians who accept religion on faith, accept it as fact. They demand it to be fact, despite the lack of evidence.

They believe it to be a fact that their religion is true. If you can provide evidence to suggest otherwise, an honest, dispassionate, and ethical individual should recognize that. However, too often they do not. Why should we respect such a position? Why should we respect those beliefs held up by nothing but fear? If faith is belief without evidence, what supports it?

If the belief is not supported by facts, reason, and evidence what else is left other than emotionalism?

I respect those who can justify what they believe. I respect those beliefs that are supported by reason, promote reason and understanding, and demand intellectual investigation. I respect even more those who do examine their beliefs and themselves. I respect those who ask themselves why exactly they believe.

Those who fail to do this, and instead suppstitute reason with emotionalism, I fail to respect that. There is nothing admirable about ducking away from reality and spending your entire life weaving away from obstacles of truth while appealing to cognitive dissonance. There is nothing admirable about those who choose to live a dream in fear of their waking life.



As a matter of fact, they do. What one believes, as a religious conviction, is either true or false. If the fact of the matter is that their religious convictions are false, they are living a lie.

In many cases, that lie may not just affect a single individual. In many cases, it can affect the whole world. It is very important that we pay attention to facts.



That's scary. That's dangerous. That's increasingly detestable.

Religion is powerful. All the more reason to care for rationality, reason, evidence, facts, and the truth. All the more reason to have an open dialouge on religion. All the more important to debate the issue and honestly examine it.



I have converted quite a significant number of religious individuals. I appealed to their reason, and they listened. They understood and they agreed. Most of them did alot of introspection, and investigation into their own convictions. They made the change themselves, and I find that to be highly admirable.

However, it isn't so much important that an individual become an atheist. That is not exactly my goal. Such a goal would be rather naive. As you said, it is not that likely that a man can change another's religious convictions. My main goal is to cause individuals to think. Just to ask questions, probe away at their religion and the religion of others. Rationalism isn't so much about conclusions as it is about how one reaches and holds those conclusions. So long as you honestly think about what you believe, and examine those beliefs, I would be very pleased.



I guess I can not help myself. I still care. I think it's very important.

I don't see how your mentality is any different from that of evangelical Christians. Both are a mentality that basically says, "I'm right, you're wrong, now I must convert you to save you from yourself." Neither seems to approach the issue with an open mind. By noting how you have converted numerous people to your viewpoint, I think you emphasize my assertion that you're not so much finding the truth as asserting your "truth", which I find as elitist as the attitudes of Christian evangelists.

I don't like the religious debate because there is no way to prove one view or another "right" or "wrong". A search for truth--not really. How are you ever going to find the truth to religious perspective?

I'm comfortable enough in my religious convictions (or lack thereof) that I don't need to convert others; I can coexist with people of a different mindset quite happily, as long as their beliefs don't intrude upon my own (through government policy, etc.). I think that a need to evangelize others to whatever belief one holds is more elitist (and more insecure) than I prefer to be. A search for "the truth" need not involve the conversion of others. Something as abstract as "the truth" as it applies to a religious debate cannot exist; it differs from person to person based on their experiences and perspectives, because religion cannot be "proven". One can use discussion with others to shape their own "truth", but I think if one is truly interested in finding "the truth", one will be happy with their own enlightenment, and should not feel a need to convert others to their own personal beliefs.

Basically, few religious debates are about a search for truth. As you have shown, most participants in such a debate already believe themselves to be correct--and more often than not, they only engage in debate to elevate themselves intellectually above the "competition". To that I say no thanks. When there is an intelligent discussion with a search for real truth and meaning, I'll take it seriously.

[quote=mipadi]
I don't see how your mentality is any different from that of evangelical Christians.
[/quote]

As a rationalist I try my best to be as dispassionate and reasonable as I can when examining any kind of proposition. Many atheists do this, many do not. Many theists do this as well, while others do not.

You continue to jump to hasty generalizations.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
Both are a mentality that basically says, "I'm right, you're wrong, now I must convert you to save you from yourself."
[/quote]

I never said that. Infact, quite the contrary:

[QUOTE]However, it isn't so much important that an individual become an atheist. That is not exactly my goal. Such a goal would be rather naive. As you said, it is not that likely that a man can change another's religious convictions. My main goal is to cause individuals to think. Just to ask questions, probe away at their religion and the religion of others. Rationalism isn't so much about conclusions as it is about how one reaches and holds those conclusions. So long as you honestly think about what you believe, and examine those beliefs, I would be very pleased.[/QUOTE]

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
Neither seems to approach the issue with an open mind.
[/quote]

Another sweeping generalization. I have met many on both sides that do, and many on both sides that do not.


[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
By noting how you have converted numerous people to your viewpoint, I think you emphasize my assertion that you're not so much finding [i]the truth as asserting your "truth", which I find as elitist as the attitudes of Christian evangelists.[/I]
[/quote]

Way to pull a straw man and dangle it infront of everyone. I was simply responding to your comment about how unlikely it is to change someones religious convictions. Allthough it is not common, it is not as rare as you made it out to be. I have never militantly roamed about church parking lots searching for "victims." Most of my converts arrived after casual and civil discussion between friends.


[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
I don't like the religious debate because there is no way to prove one view or another "right" or "wrong".
[/quote]

That's not so. The negative existential proposition can be proven. It isn't an impossibility.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
A search for truth--not really. How are you ever going to find the truth to religious perspective?
[/quote]

It seems that I may have been at fault by throwing out the word "truth" so lightly. It was not my intent to trivialize the complexities of religious debate. I don't mean to. However, my own personal opinion is that of rationalism.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
I'm comfortable enough in my religious convictions (or lack thereof) that I don't need to convert others; I can coexist with people of a different mindset quite happily, as long as their beliefs don't intrude upon my own (through government policy, etc.).
[/quote]

I don't need to convert others. I'm very comfortable with my religious convictions. I do happily coexist with people who hold different beliefs. Are you implying that since I think the debate is important, and enjoy participating in it that I must be insecure with my convictions?

If so, it seems highly fallacious, not to mention unnecessary.

This is a debate, why not share your religious convictions? Why do you have to enter into the thread to declare how worthless the debate is?

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
I think that a need to evangelize others to whatever belief one holds is more elitist (and more insecure) than I prefer to be.
[/quote]

At this very moment you seem the most insecure and elitist. You enter the thread only to declare how worthless it is. How futile and naive we are to even discuss such a topic. I'm not so sure anyone has a need to evangelize others. But, why do you feel the need to note that your absence of relevant and substantial posts somehow denotes your comfortability with your religious convictions while our open dialouge on the matter somehow denotes our insecurities?

This thread seems to mainly revolve around the historical accuracy of the Bible. Something that can definately be intelligently debated. How about you join in? I'm sure you have plenty to contribute. If not, don't bother it. Be constructive.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
A search for "the truth" need not involve the conversion of others.
[/quote]

Yeah. We know.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
Something as abstract as "the truth" as it applies to a religious debate cannot exist; it differs from person to person based on their experiences and perspectives, because religion cannot be "proven".
[/quote]

Ok. This is a mess of an epistemological stance.

Even if religion could not be proven, there would still be a truth value behind any ontological statement.

X either exists, or X does not exist.

The truth of either of the above statments is not a subjective matter. Just because the experiences and perspectives of people differ, does not mean that the truth of a given proposition can be swayed by such experience or perspective. To put it simply, what people believe has nothing to do with what is.

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
One can use discussion with others to shape their own "truth", but I think if one is truly interested in finding "the truth", one will be happy with their own enlightenment, and should not feel a need to convert others to their own personal beliefs.
[/quote]

I'm happy with my own discoveries. I don't feel the need to convert others to my personal beliefs. I still enjoy debate.


[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
Basically, few religious debates are about a search for truth.
[/quote]

And others debates are? You seem to imagine that most people all have secret alterior motives when coming into a religious debate. Alterior motives that are blaringly different than any other?

As you have presented your argument, it seems rather nonspecific. I could apply it to nearly any philosophical debate. Somehow, I don't think you are against all such debates. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, what exactly do you have against religious debate? Why do you feel the need to voice such feelings in active threads, when they are blaringly counter-productive?

[quote=mipadi,Dec 6 2005, 1:31 AM]
As you have shown, most participants in such a debate already believe themselves to be correct--and more often than not, they only engage in debate to elevate themselves intellectually above the "competition". To that I say no thanks. When there is an intelligent discussion with a search for real truth and meaning, I'll take it seriously.
[/quote]

If anyone seems elitist here, it's you. Somehow, you know that no search for "real" truth and meaning are present in religious debate. However, you seem to imply that there are other philosophical debates which do have such a search. How can you tell? How are you so wise to differentiate those debates which are honest searches, and those that are psuedointellectual flexing?

And, why do you feel the need to point it out? Why is it so important to disrupt the "phony" search? Maybe you're doing some of that flexing yourself.

You miss the point of my statements. I'm simply pointing out that, in this case, there really cannot ever be a truth, or at the very least, no one is ever going to know it; so a search for a truth is futile.

What is truth, anyway? I don't feel it simply is an epistemological issue, especially not in this case. The truth is not a hard and fast, true-or-false, objective state which you describe. Ultimately, because everything comes down to a single person's perceptions, it can easily be shown that even something that seems concrete like the truth is really a subjective state. On a top like religion, "the truth" can vary--this is compounded by the fact that there's not really anyway to prove a religious belief to be true, so anyone can perceive their point of view to be correct.

I have a friend who is a philosophy major. One night, I left my room to go for a walk. He was taking a break from writing his thesis and smoking a cigarette. He and I started talking, and eventually the discussion veered towards perceptions of the world. I'm a computer science major, and I mentioned off-handedly that I preferred to use math and science to find out the truth. He cut me off right away--"That's fine, Michael," he said, "but you don't want to throw around 'the truth' as casually as that. What is the truth, but the way you perceive the world?"

Might as well be solipsism.

So, this is really just a topic for a whole other debate. I'm a rationalist and hold most truth to be objective. Existentials tend to be one of those truths. Morality and aesthetics, not so much.

Great, interesting, and valid points. Just, much more useful in another thread altogether. We should discuss the issue, for it is a very interesting issue, and a favorite of mine.

I dont think that it would be proper to talk about this here because people will get man.

alright. try looking at the argument from an aspect that doesn't involve religion (i'm not religious). we just talked about this like last week at school.

the bible, while in the old testament god actually isn't very loving at all, in the new testament the commandments five to ten are really about "how to live at peace with humanity" (you shall not kill, honor your mother and father, you shall not steal, etc). the new testament is sometimes considered a book of love. if you take the new testament to the basics, the stories and values are all about love and forgiveness and mercy. would you say all this is bullsh1t?

christian values have integrated themselves so deeply into our culture that we don't even realize the affect. for example, we are a guilt culture, which means that you personally feel bad for your actions. this is an affect of christianity. in ancient greece they had a shame culture, which meant that there were no morals involved, it was all about shame- your actions are made by what others think of you. they had no values of kindness, empathy, or mercy that were considered relavant.

look at our culture now, and how goodness and forgiveness and all of these morals shape our lives in such a positive way... it's not bullsh1t.

The atrocities, detestables, and total disregard for practical ethics in more than half of the Bible is enough to cast doubt on it as a morally sophisticated peice of work. Which, it is not. It lacks originality and depth. It is also poisoned by great inconsistency.

It would be important to note that these morals do not first appear in biblical text. We see them long before in hinduistic text, and buddhistic teachings, as well as countless other pagan doctrines. We even see more sophisticared, and complex moral system within Hinduism. Even pacifism is considered.

British Common Law also predates 5th century christian influence. Our law is directly derived by Common Law, which Christianity had no part in forming.

Greek philosophy, before Christian influence, has been one of the most influence periods of philosophical thought on western society and philosophy. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle specificly.

Both Plato and Aristotle wrote extensively on ethics. Predating christian influence, many of their ideas and trends are still part of western society. Even pre-socratic philosophers, such as Democritus, sophisticatingly discussed ethics. To suggest that ancient Greece was devoid of morality, seems rather shortsighted. All of these ancient philosophers, from Greece, and many more discussed morality.

But, these are not even the greatest issues I have with your argument. My main issue is that you try to build a cause and effect relationship between religion and morality. Which, just simply is not true. The irreligious are fully capable of being moral individuals, while the religious are fully capable of being immoral individuals. Often they are. Not only do you seem to build a bridge between contemporary morality and religion, but you even seem to point to Christianity as a specific contribution to morality in society. Such a correlation does not seem prevelant to me.

Also, the history of Christian influence also casts doubt on your conviction. From the Crusades to St. Thomas Aquinas advocating violence as a means to convert the masses, the idea that christianity inherently holds positive moral influence is greatly challenged. Morality is a personal choice, when it fails to be such, it fails to be a moral question. It then becomes a question of masked totalitarianistic ethical behavior. Morality is not a commandment, and as Ayn Rand once said, "The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."

The fact that people say God wasn't very 'nice' is just...blah. God can be anything He wants, He is in fact God. He's the Alpha and Omega. He created you and me, the earth you live on and the air you breath ((to what I believe)).

I also think that people should respect all religions, whether you think they are right or wrong. It's their belief and one should let them alone. If you want someone to respect what you believe in then don't disrespect what they belive in by calling it a bunch of crap.

Humans are curious species, who think that if there is no evidence of such, then it doesn't exist or is naturally wrong.

Fact of the matter, you alone decide what you want to believe in and that your choice and no one else's. We'll all see who's religion is right when our lives end. All and all, it'll be too late to go back to change the course of your life.

Well, the Bible says, in so many words, Christianity is right and other religions are wrong and does, in fact, lable non-Christians with such words as heretic, infidel... etc. These terms don't mean much in our time (not), but if a person is called as such a century or two from now, he/she could be flayed, burned or hanged. These are words that are meant to demean a person or groups of people and though they are not often used now in everyday speech, the meaning of their existence is quite clear.

Tolerance and respect work both ways; sensible, I think.

Oh, my, um. Well, I have something to show you all.



I think, personally, the bible was written by someone who had a lot of free time on their hands. They took some true stuff and some crazy stuff and put it in a book.

Acid Bath Slayer you've earned a great deal of respect for me as an articulate writer of a logical, comprehensive and well-researched post, or a masterful Googler. Regardless, your post is extraordinary!