re-runs suck ass

[64ksim]

Manifest Destiny - a political philosophy common among American statesman and business leaders in the nineteenth century that held that United States was destined to, or deserved to, conquer the heart of North America from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean

The population was booming in America during the 1800’s with the influx of immigrants to America, and the rabid growth of the industrial revolution, US domestic policy turned west for much needed land, and natural resources. There was however one slight problem which the US government had dealt with in minimal ways before. The scope of this problem very realized, which lead to some of the greatest human tragedies, save only the American Civil War, that the North America would witness to date.

Many Americans can recite date, names, and places of importance of American history from this time period. What seems to just be a foot note in the history books except for a few major events is the uprooting of massive civilizations, which had been living with the land for thousands of years. The American Indian was forced from there ancestral homelands on to spits of land which, no white male wanted. If some resource was found on that land, they would be moved yet again e.g. South Kansas, Oklahoma, and North Texas for Oil.

When students in class rooms around America are listing to teachers lecture about these atrocities, there is talk about a different time, about how the American Indians were seen as less than other people because they did not understand Western ideas about money and ownership. How they were not understood for their complex, and compassionate social structures; yet as Pagan savages.

This has lead to many concessions toward Indian Nations, which honestly do not make up for what was done. Indian reservations are still some of the most impoverished areas in America, and some of our political leaders, Tom DeLay among others, are still exploiting. What has and continues to happen is appalling, and largely under covered by media. This only furthers not just the disparity of wealth between the Native American, and other classes of society, but when such abuses are not highlighted it also furthers the massive wealth gap of all Americans.

History is taught and studied, so that as we progress we learn from our mistakes. We don’t repeat the evils of the past; however America is the largest and the majority of the time the only supporter of what I like to refer to as Neo-Manifest Destiny.

The US is spending $3 billion annually, to help support the displacement and segregation of yet another people with out a nation. The reference is clear the support of Israel. Before 1983 the State of Israel, was responsible for more US deaths, both of civilian people and military personal, than any other Middle Eastern government or internal non-government origination. Given these facts Israel still is the largest recipient of US foreign Aid, on top of that we also arm them to the teeth with the latest and greatest in military weapons, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Which at any point could be turned on US citizens, ask Rachel Corrie (1979-2003) could tell you.

The American media is constantly siding with Israel, all one needs to do is replay the news coverage of the massacre of Lebanon over in your head. Did you hear about the 13 people in Tyre which had a 200lbs. guided bomb dropped on them as there were having a funeral march? The south Beirut hospital which was bombed? The International Red Cross Ambulance targeted? This Israel pilot guided the bomb right in the middle of the Cross on top of the Ambulance (what great moral soldiers the IDF has). Of course you did not.

Did you hear of the Palestine refugee camp outside of Tyre which was bombed? Of course you did not. As the guns fall silent Lebanon is left $2.2 billion of damage, mainly civilian infrastructure damaged. A target which is made off limits in war by the 4th Geneva Conventions

There are many theories about why the American media has a clear and obvious Israeli bias, non for which I care even to discuss or entertain. The affects of this bias, and AIPAC overwhelming influence on the American Government is much more important. When it comes to understanding the conflict between Palestine and Israel. There are only a few things you need to understand about what and why this is happening.

First most Israeli military aggression in the West Back or Gaza is precipitated by resistance, mainly non-violent, against land grabbing, or residential destruction. Further more very rarely does Israel retaliate against anything. Israel has invaded a sovereign nation state; Palestine was created by the same UN document that created Israel. According the Geneva Conventions, any persons military or civilian may aggressively attack using any means, in accordance to the other stipulations of the conventions, any occupying force. This would be no different and a military invasion of America, if you have a gun and want to defend your home you may, and not to many American’s are going to think any less of you if you did stand your ground.

Second the justification for this slaughter is waged first on your mind, and secondly by US tax paper weapons on the ground. The National Government of Israel spends huge amounts of time, money and effort. To maintains a huge PR agency which produces press release after press release to make them look like the victim. The victim, with the largest standing army in the Middle East 250,000 for its roughly 3 million citizens, the second largest Air Force in the Word, using the most advanced weaponry, to attack civilian infrastructure (against the Geneva Conventions), attack international aid workers (against the Geneva Conventions), demolish homes some of which have been with families for more than half a millennia (against the Geneva Conventions), and kill refuges (against the Geneva Conventions).

Third this is not something that the Israeli Government tries to hide or claim they are not doing. There leaders from 1947 to present have been quite forth right and honest with their plans of genocide, ethnic cleanings, and racial superiority:
David Ben Gurion
Prime Minister of Israel
1949 - 1954,
1955 - 1963

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
-- David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."
-- David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).

Golda Meir
Prime Minister of Israel
1969 – 1974

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."
-- Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
1974 - 1977,
1992 – 1995

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 - 1984,
1986 - 1992

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 – 1999

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 – 2001

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

Forth, many claim, via Israel’s charter that this small nation state is the Jewish homeland. Through out human history the Jewish people have been subject to many of the same forms of abuse, most recently the Nazi Holocaust. This in no way shape or from justifies forcing people to live in rubble, with out food or shelter where they could be exterminated, with out cause or justification. The holocaust was a terrible event; We must learn from it that slaughter a group of people because of certain ethnic, or religious difference, is not and will never be acceptable. Violence only begets violence, and hate only begets hate. It is time all parties involved to take a stand against this.

Fifth, killing someone in the name of G-d, or Allah is wrong! There is no reason for it. The sons and daughter of Abraham should not be slaughtering each other. Both groups of people have a good reason to want to inhabit the same land. No one claim is more vaild than another. God (all inclusive term) wants all of his children to use the holy land and the fruits of such for something that glorifies God. The taking of life and spilling of blood on what both sides see as the most holy of lands is not and will never been seen in the eyes of God as a non-sinful act. Israel must comply with the original charter for its very existence. Only at that time will there even be a hope of a true dialogue between the parties concerned about what belongs to whom. Ideally, both people and both religions should be able to exist in harmony. There must be an end to the human constructed feud between the family of Isaac and the family of Ishmael. Read the Torah, Koran, or even the Bible, Ishmael and Bathsheba left Abraham in peace, as Abraham let both leave in peace. Not once in any of the three works is there even the slightness mention of war with in God’s chosen family.

Sixth, create all the whacked out drug induced theory you want about it. The fact remains the United States is the largest supporter of terror. Blame you ever you want, major mulit-national banks, the military industrial complex, power hungry leaders, or the little green men in pink tights that hide in the wood. It does not matter. The solution is and always has been the same. We must stand up against this, we can not be complacent. If we are the only thing we will learn is what American fascism looks like and who the real puppet master is.

History will repeat itself, and is repeating itself. It is time for the unjustified apartheid to end. We should all be outraged at this, outraged for many reasons but the most important on is the fact that innocent people are being slaughtered. If we can’t stop this and other similar atrocities, then that says very little for humanity. We must end Neo-Manifest Destiny before another culture, people and unique ideas are lost. Before our actions are judged by history as poor, shortsighted, and barbaric. No resource, land, religion, or idea is more valuable than human life, which is what we must come to understand.

--Eric Borchers

[Ry]

Israeli Jews's claims that God gave them the land their military took by force is no different than how God gave whites the land American Indians used to live on, when the colonizers took it with their military by force.

Isn't religion grand? It can justify anything.

[64ksim]

Ry,

very correct any work of philoshophic/theological work can justify any act, when certain parts are taken out of context...I know i'm most like in the minorty on this site, but i am and do consider my self a Christian...I don't give money to my churches general collection becuase i know money might and does go to causes that 1 i don't support, and 2 i believe to be un-christian

This is just my personal beliefe which many at my church(as a local congergation believe to be true as well(yes rational people can be religous)) that religion never should or can be used to justify action, action must jutify religion...meaning any action that I (or my chruch takes) we judge that action on the merit of does this help every person invovled. If the actions does not we do not take it.

[Ry]

It's not really out of context though. The best Christians are the ones who ignore 90% of the bible and invent their own meaning by almost thinking for themselves and then saying that oh that's what god "meant".

For example when it talks about how to sell slaves they somehow twist that into meaning don't have slaves. When it says to sacrifice animals they twist that to mean don't sacrifice animals. When it says women should not teach they twist it to mean they can teach.

Taking the Bible out of context is the best thing ever because the Bible is totally immoral and preposterous.

Come on, the creation stories and yes there are two different ones borderline on that of a mother goose story and the stories about Samson's magic hair and Noah and his Ark or the tower of Bable ect rank up there with the best of any myth or grims fairytales.

I'm glad you at least separate your belief from the Church. It is an evil institution. I don't know why you would believe some guy nailed to a stick was somehow a sacrifice to his own father or really to himself (depending if you are catholic or protestant) Basically god makes himself flesh then has himself sacrifced to himself so that he can spare humans from his own wrath so long as they believe in his little masochistic tantrum.

It's not even good rhetoric, I mean as far as religions go that's a pretty poor rationalization for why their leader got tooled by the Romans, oh oh he wanted to be killed and he died for our sins....right they wanted the Massiah to rise up and defeat the Romans (as was the prophecy which he did not fulfill) but he just got his ass whipped by them, they put a sack on his head and struck him and asked who hit you oh lord? And you know who took the Romans down? No not god, the Mongolians-who were not even monotheists.

Christianity is like a mental/social disease that justified the divine right of kings which led to 100 of years of top down rule where 90% of the population lived as serfs and war was constant. The reason the ROmans coverted was because under monotheism the emperor is given all the power as opposed to the senate and he can consolidate all the wealth and throw it behind the military for a campaign of kill, covert, and collect. Under Polytheism there are too many different gods for the different city state and that divideds the wealth as well as the political clout amoung the different preist (temple heads). Monotheism also simplifys things for the masses.

Japan learned a similar lesson jumping from Shinto to Buddhism/shinto mix. They united under the godless Buddhism which none the less in unified with a singal text ect and no more regional gods. That's what Greece and Rome were too, people did not believe in all the god, they had regional temples and they only tacitly followed the rest.

[Opened Eyes]

Have you ever actually read the entire New Testament Ry? There are many good lessons that people today could apply to situations happening this very day as there are in many religions. Organized religion has played some very positive roles in our modern history. Martin Luther King Jr. was a religious man and look at what he accomplished with his church and followers. In my opinion, it is always peoples twisting of their religion to be made to further their agenda or political cause that has poisoned it for many. You seem to focus too much on the Old Testament. Most Christians focus on the New Testament, that's were the most important things in Christian belief are held. The Old Testament is mostly 'fable' type stories were as the New Testament is full of people giving hope to the oppressed masses. I suggest looking at the overall meaning of the stories and lives portrayed in the Bible. Please don’t come out so hard against any one religion. If one were to do that against Judaism or Islam on this website I have a feeling it would be met with a much more negative response.

[Ry]

Have I read it. Of cpurse I have read it. I went to VES and studied it everyday.

MLK was saying things that actually go against the NT. The NT supports slavery and condemns homosexuality and supports the divine right of kings. If you need me to quote it for you I can.

My question is Have you read it. Have you really read it (as an adult) not just Matthew Mark Luke Jhon and Revolations but the entire thing.

[Opened Eyes]

I have read it as well. Yes, please provide direct quotes for the Bible as well as other major religions holy books just to be fair. All holy books from the western worlds major religions promote basically the same laws you've mentioned considering they are all over 2000 years old and it must be understood that social norms can change in that amount of time, but yes, please quote from all of them. When you're done then quote all of the positive quotes that are still relevent today.

[Ry]

I dont care if other religions are just as stupid that doesn't make it OK. There are thousands of religions there is on ly one atheism.

Here these are all from the New Testament. There are more but I got tired of it.

Quote:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men....(Eph. 6:5-7, NIV)

yeh but see they ARE serving MEN.


Quote:
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered (1 Tim. 6:1, NIV)."


Quote:
"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord (Col. 3:22, NIV)."


Quote:
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,....(Titus 2:9, NIV)."


Quote:
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also those who are harsh....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:18,21, NIV)."


Wow Paul and Peter sure seem to be OK with Slavery.


Quote:
ROM. 1:26-27 ("For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use (a degrading word--Ed.) of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...."),


Quote:
1 COR. 6:9-10 Mod. Lang. ("...Be not misled; neither profligates, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor partakers of homosexuality...will inherit the kingdom of God")


Quote:
1 TIM. 1:9-10 NASB ("...the law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners...and immoral men and homosexuals....").


Unless you just hate gay people too, you would have to admit the Bible yes the New Testament sure doesn't approve of them.

Now how about the divine right of Kings which Chriistians lived under for 1800 years? Don't forget the praise for King David, King Solomon, and King Saul, no where does it say we should have a Republic and vote and that Kings are just ordinary men. See ROM 13 apparently God appointed all the leaders, gee do you think maybe the leaders wrote that themselves?

This is why Rome embraced Christianity.

[Opened Eyes]

Ry, the meaning of these scriptures, especially the word slave, is critical to understanding this controversy. For example, in the King James version, the most widely used version in the 1700 and 1800s in America when slavery existed, the word slave was used only once (Jer 2:14), and the word slaves also was used only once (Rev 18:13). Conversely, servant, servants, and other similar words were used almost a thousand times. Therefore, the question “Does the Bible condone slavery” first requires defining the word slave.

"Slavery" in the Bible is actually an ancient form of indentured servitude. Basically, an indentured servant is someone who does services like manual labor or something else in exchange for food and shelter, provided by the master. Slavery is not necessary now as it was then. Times have changed just a little in the two or three thousand years since the Old and New Testament days.
Saying that “God gave guidelines on the treatment of slaves" does not prove that there should be slaves. Slaves WERE a necessary evil which we can definitely live without. The guidelines, when they were used, helped to ease the inhumanity of being a slave. We have rules for war, but that does not make warfare a necessity.
Simply put, life was definitely not as simple as it is today. The Hebrews back then lived "hand-to-mouth". They didn't work for profit, they worked to survive. But an indentured servant was GUARANTEED food and a home, in exchange for doing work. This may have been the most fair and humane option for a family.

It is true that Slavery was an accepted practice in biblical times by many cultures not just Hebrews and later Christians (as well as many cultures thereafter). The greater question is Does God approve of Slavery? Consider Paul in his letter to Philemon about his slave (and brother in Christ) Onesimus. Paul simply put, did not promote slavery.

The argument that the bible condones and promotes slavery has been used before. It was used by people of the seceded south to justify their use of slaves. Now I’m sure you wouldn’t want to use the same argument that the bible condones slavery as these bigots right Ry?
The truth is that in Christianity, God created all humans as equal; none is superior to another.

It’s funny you say that “There are thousands of religions there is only one atheism”. The truth is that many atheists hold many variations on their beliefs just as many monotheistic religions also do. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the same God but obviously there are many differences to their religions. The same is true among atheists. They don’t all believe exactly the same as you state. For example there are some that believe in evolution where as others hold other beliefs that involve extra terrestrials as well as other variations on human origins.



Regarding homosexuality in the bible your misquotes didn’t help your argument. 1 Timothy verses 9-10 say this:
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” This in no way makes mention to homosexuality.
Again misquoting the bible in another one of your quotes. 1 Corinthians versus 6-10 says the following:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” By replacing certain words with homosexual it doesn’t help your argument.
Even if the bible did not approve of homosexuality, which I believe is false, it doesn’t state anywhere that we should hate these people. Everyone deserves God’s love according to the bible and ‘gay-bashing’, hating or treating a homosexual less than human is NEVER made mention of in the bible.

Finally regarding the ‘Divine Right of Kings’; In the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 13, Paul wrote that earthly rulers, even though they may not be Christians, have been appointed by God to their places of power for the purpose of punishing evildoers. Some Biblical scholars believe that Paul was writing, in part, to reassure the Roman authorities who ruled his world that the Christian movement was not subversive. This simply means that Paul didn’t want to make the Christian movement seem like it was going to overthrow the Government. The difficulty posed for later Christians is that the New Testament contained no explicit plan for the government of a mostly Christian society. This is why you won't find that we should have a Republic and vote and that Kings are just ordinary men. It assumed that Christians would always be a minority in a pagan world, and its political counsel was limited mostly to advising members to obey the law and stay out of the way of pagan government. In the western world it came to be associated with Roman Catholicism and other Christian faiths in the Reformation period. The notion of divine right of kings was certainly in existence in the medieval period, however it was in the early modern era, under the ancient régime, that the notion became extensively used as a primarily political mechanism, i.e. for increasing the power of kings within centralized monarchies relative to their nobles and subjects. It was given its most comprehensive formulations by the French bishop Bossuet and King James I of England, but it owes much to the earlier writings of Augustine of Hippo and Paul of Tarsus. Again, the twisting of the Bible for personal and political gain. Happened then, happens now.

Please understand that the essence of Christianity is forgivness and love. Most importantly remember that some things were put in the Bible to show us how NOT to act and some things were put in the Bible to show us how we SHOULD act. With each are also shown consequences and rewards, be it negative or positive. I hope this helps clear things up for you.

[64ksim]

It's not really out of context though. The best Christians are the ones who ignore 90% of the bible and invent their own meaning by almost thinking for themselves and then saying that oh that's what god "meant".

Ok I’ll try to be brief.

many christians suck and being christians...I my self and not perfect but lets face it non-of us are.

Ry, You point out many good points via a narrow and out of context view of the new and old testament. Many christians look at the epistials(letter’s mainly from Paul to early churches) as divine understanding. How can personal correspondence between two major(on regional and one local) be view as divine. The bible to me and many other christians is a guide which must be taken in context.

In order to understand anything you must attempt to know as much as you can about the subject, which is why I have read the bible 7 (working on different times. In five different english translations.

Some points of observations about the volume of work:

First, many critics of Christianity point out some ‘flaws’ or ‘condarditions’ between the two parts of the bible. Now ask yourself if i was living in society 6000+ years ago and 2000 years ago would culture be different. Now ask yourself if i’m God would i design my work to speak to the people of the time, or the people which will read this book 6000 years later? Any person with half a brain would answer i would target my the current population. Now think about the question i posed, and combine that with the literary idea of impeding morals with in a work of words.

Which is more important, the words used or the message?

When we watch a movie are you going to be able to act out the entire work three years later, or will you remember the message and “main idea” which the movie was talking about. You are going to remember the latter.

You may draw what ever conclusions you want via the acts of different people in the ‘name’ or religion, or you can judge the religion via the merits of what the main idea and advocating of principles are.