Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Of course. Cite the example of a Christian Church -- filled with worshippers -- destroyed by fire, lightning, hurricane, tornado or other natural disaster. Suggest that it was God's will. Then duck and cover when the outraged turn on you. While we are at it -- Don't depend on Scripture like "Turn the other cheek" to protect you. That never seems to live, quite like a desire to avenge an insult to the faith.

If someone is so ignorant of Scripture that they think it is all sweetness and light and goodness -- I am entitled to point to a few of the nasty bits -- if only to demonstrate that they exist. I am not hoping for positive consequences. Not from that Book. I am stating my truth as I understand it. In accordance with objective, external reality as I understand it. I am not telling the believing faithful to drown non-believers. I am pointing out that the Bible says that non-believers are worthy of being drowned. I have read the Book. It says what it says. Good, bad and otherwise. If we are not afraid of the truth, we must confront what Scripture actually says. Not what we want it to say. It is all there. Anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-human dignity. The truth is the truth, regardless of where it takes us.

Yes, Dan. Its all there. The very good and the truly awful. By cherry picking we can prove anything. Again, my interest is not what could have been or what should have been. My interest is what actually happened. What happened was 2,000 years of bloody mayhem. No matter how we dance around it, at least some of the Scriptures justified that awful history. The world might have been a better place if you or I had edited Scripture. Its too late for that now. The Bible in it's totality is what it is. So is history. So is the violence that goes on today. Because people don't confine themselves to the sweet and gentle passages. They read all of it -- and much of it is an incitement to pure evil.

Dan wanted me to show him how violence, in the real world, has flowed from Scripture. My interest in this matter is not theology. It is 2,000 years of bloody mayhem, that does indeed have its roots in Christian Scripture.

It is possible that Scripture was produced by a God, that does not care if Scripture is understood. Of course, for this to be the case, God would have to be even more of a monster. There is another possibility. God intended Scripture to be understood only by a professional priest class. Still rather a nasty monster. IMO Is that where you wanted to go with this? Beliefs and interpretations have consequences.

2 Kings 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations From Biblegateway.com I suggest clicking on other translations. There is much variety of translation in what the bears did to the children. Tore, tore to pieces, ripped to pieces, mauled, etc.

Seriously? The version that I read said that they were killed. "Hoodlums?" That's an interesting word. I recall the word be "children."

When the Bible tells it's believers that an Atheist deserves to be drowned -- then those believers go out and kill Atheists -- there is a clear causal relationship. It does not matter to the murder victim if the killing is by drowning, hanging, shooting, stabbing, stoning, etc. Once the Atheist s declared worthy of execution, there is always a true believer who is willing to oblige. After all. God said so. The same God who is the greatest killer in all of history. Or his Son, who is the same God in a different form. Another argument that means nothing to those who have been killed. The issue here is whether or not atrocities flow from the Bible. Of course they do. I do not need to debate the precise nuance of every blood soaked passage. These are the Scriptures that have inspired mayhem for 2,000 years. I don't need to debate every passage, because it is not the non-believer who reads and then kills.

Yes. That is how a true believer plays the game. It amounts to Scripture wars.

Dan wanted an example of atrocities flowing from Christian Scripture. I found him one. It is not my interpretation. Neither are they my Scriptures. It is, as you say, an interpretation. After 2,000 years of mayhem, we can see where some of it came from.

Dan, since you asked. Mathew 18: 6. Unbelievers should be drowned.

Dan, since you asked. Mathew 18: 6. Unbelievers should be drowned.

Yes. That is the nature of the market place of ideas. People are indeed entitled to be mistaken. Still, to insist that Catholics are not Christians....... That takes a lot of nerve. Then again, it is the same attitude that let's Dan say that Judaism has been replaced. The level of arrogance required to take such positions is staggering. Of course, using the same faith based reasoning, a Muslim could claim that Islam has replaced all of them. It says so in the Koran.

Here is a thought for you. Maybe I do understand the Bible. Maybe that is why I don't find it convincing. Maybe it is because I read it from cover to cover, that my faith in it was destroyed. I did read the Bible. Carefully. Several times. My faith never recovered.

Here is a thought for you. Maybe I do understand the Bible. Maybe that is why I don't find it convincing. Maybe it is because I read it from cover to cover, that my faith in it was destroyed. I did read the Bible. Carefully. Several times. My faith never recovered.

I can ignore the lack of compassion. Sweeping 2,000 years of history under the rug by saying that they were not true Christians -- that gets on my nerves. Then of course, there is the double standard. Every time a Muslim does something bad -- it's because the religion supports terrorism. Let the Klan burn a cross on somebody's lawn -- they are not real Christians. Or, let an Agnostic do something wrong. It's because of a lack of belief. It's tedious. It's irritating. Then again, Dan goes beyond the double standard. It's more like a triple standard. When Dan comes back on, he will demand to know what Christ did that was bad. I will mention that poor fig tree that Jesus killed for not having fruit out of season. Dan will insist that this is a parable and not history. It is amazing how things are parables when it's convenient, and history when it's convenient. So predictable. So annoying. If the usual pattern holds, I will then object that Dan's interpretation of this particular parable is anti-semitic. I've had this argument with him often enough. Dan will reply by insisting that it's not anti-semitic by citing the Gospels. The fault is mine. I should stop dancing with him.

You can not undue 2,000 years of Christian history and horror with a few witicisims. In particular, when atrocities flow from Scripture. Whether you like it or not, the Bible has been used to justify many things. Many of them awful. It's not my Scriptural interpretation or yours that matters. Only what happened and is still happening.

People don't need religion to make them bad. This much is true. People can do awful things without religion. Religion does help good people to do awful things. As in "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.". As in "Kill them all. God will know his own". Beyond that, I let people define themselves. The KKK insists that they are Christians. As does the Catholic Church. As does the Mormon Church. It is not for me, or you, to tell them that they are not Christian.

Yes. An awful self inflicted wound. Wait until his devout Christian following find out how they were fooled.

Yes. So much for turning to parables for real life guidance. I'm thinking of the fig tree, killed by Jesus for the crime of not bearing fruit out of season. One of the problems with Scripture, is that it can be used to support any conclusion.

Your double standards for Christians and everyone else continue to amaze me. If a Muslim does something bad, it proves he is a Muslim. If a Christian does something bad, it proves that he is not a Christian. Dan, it gets tedious.

As I expected, you have gone straight to the true Christian defense. If they are good, they are true Christians. If they are bad, they are false Christians. That is the meaning of what you are saying. I could ignore the fact that you have chosen to change the topic, with a dishonest deflection. I will focus instead on the implications of what you have said. That the existence of good Muslims means that Islam is true. After all -- if we are to know them by their fruits; we must judge Islam by the same standards that we use to judge Christianity.

You cite the difference "between what Christians and Muslims believe and follow.". Really? Must we go down the list of Christian atrocities? We can start with the KKK. Don't bother telling me that the Klan are not real Christians. I'm equally bored with hearing that the Islamists are not real Muslims. Of course they are. In both cases.

I have other concerns: The teaching of Creationism in science class; the persecution of gay people; Evangelical military chaplains; etc.

Some Christian. Quoting from "Two Corinthians". Even I know better than that. P.T. Barnum was right. There is a sucker born every minute.