Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[popsthebuilder]

It is each and every persons right to have faith in a higher power. To remove that right is one of the most closed minded meglomaniacal things I have ever heard. Yeah, no one needs to freshen up on their moral values around here.

.

There are probably no texts that do more than the Quran and the Bible to attack this very right you claim is so important and is immoral to attack. A right to have faith in a higher power is meaningless if one is not free to choose what that higher power is or to have no faith in a higher power. Yet, the Quran and the Bible both promote violence against those who choose not the have faith in one particular notion of that higher power.

By your own moral standards, these texts and the God they advocate are heinously immoral.

Not so at all. The ignorant are to be judged by GOD based on their actions just like everyone else. Both books actually mention other Faiths.

Non believers refers to this who know of the will of GOD and choose to go against it. They are blasphemous and turn others from the will of GOD. They are not atheist or anyone else ignorant of GOD.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, but it doesn't work.

The verses I quoted ( there are many more) relate to how non believers were viewed at that time, and how they were to be treated.

I see very little, if any, sign of tolerance or mercy to be found in these verses.

Now, you can argue for context in the sense that this attitude may have applied to that time and place, but not to here and now....and there may be a case to be made.

But given that claim of the Quran as an Allah/God inspired work the context argument doesn't alter the attitude of intolerance and absence of mercy displayed at that time, this time or at any time by an eternal Being, a God.

Allah, if an actual God, cannot chop and change according to human fashions of a time and place. Displaying intolerance and violence one day and switching to so called mercy the next.

If eternal and merciful, Allah is either merciful at all times and all places or only now and then..as the mood strikes.

A single display of intolerance and violence negates the claim to eternal mercy and tolerance, instead sowing confusion, fickleness and intolerance.

You really aren't making sense.

Your position, your faith doesn't permit you to acknowledge what is quite obvious.

No verse you quoted showed intolerance or lack of mercy in any way.

Of course they do.

Take this one for example; "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." - Quran (3:56)

This displays complete intolerance toward non believers. Not for any transgression against Islam, not for inciting hatred, not for stirring up trouble, but simply for not believing in the teachings of Islam.

Which threatens not only 'terrible agony in this world' but also the hereafter. This is clearly not an example of mercy or tolerance.

It is easy to be tolerant toward those who share your beliefs, but much harder when dealing with those who question or reject the faith.

Now Allah was truly merciful, He would be merciful toward all people.

There is no mercy to be found in that verse, or many like it.

And who are you to say that God cannot give different commands based on time and culture? God is immutable, man is not.

It's not a question of what can or cannot do, but what He is claimed to be: merciful and therefore tolerant.

So we have that claim on the on one hand, but verses that clearly contradict the claim of a merciful God on the other.

Can you see the problem in terms of logic. Either one is true and the other false. Both claims cannot be true.

Anyway, it's your move if you wish to continue to be manipulative.

Manipulative? Not at all. A claim was made and that claim was then put to question by using the very same source material. Which appears to show a contradiction.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You really aren't making sense.

Your position, your faith doesn't permit you to acknowledge what is quite obvious.

No verse you quoted showed intolerance or lack of mercy in any way.

Of course they do.

Take this one for example; "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." - Quran (3:56)

This displays complete intolerance toward non believers. Not for any transgression against Islam, not for inciting hatred, not for stirring up trouble, but simply for not believing in the teachings of Islam.

Which threatens not only 'terrible agony in this world' but also the hereafter. This is clearly not an example of mercy or tolerance.

It is easy to be tolerant toward those who share your beliefs, but much harder when dealing with those who question or reject the faith.

Now Allah was truly merciful, He would be merciful toward all people.

There is no mercy to be found in that verse, or many like it.

And who are you to say that God cannot give different commands based on time and culture? God is immutable, man is not.

It's not a question of what can or cannot do, but what He is claimed to be: merciful and therefore tolerant.

So we have that claim on the on one hand, but verses that clearly contradict the claim of a merciful God on the other.

Can you see the problem in terms of logic. Either one is true and the other false. Both claims cannot be true.

Anyway, it's your move if you wish to continue to be manipulative.

Manipulative? Not at all. A claim was made and that claim was then put to question by using the very same source material. Which appears to show a contradiction.

There you go taking things out of context again. Are you even aware that that is one of the same verses you took out of context last time. For like the tenth time, stop conflating the ignorant with the willingly misleading. They are not the same at all.

25:63. Those alone are the true servants of the Most Gracious (God) who walk upon the earth in all humility, (but in a dignified manner), and when the ignorant address them, they (do not wrangle but) observe a peaceful attitude.

28:55. And when they hear something vain they turn away from it and say (to those who indulge in vain talk), ‘We shall reap the fruit of our deeds and you shall reap the fruit of yours.’ (Bidding them goodbye then say,) ‘Peace be upon you. We have no desire to have any concern with the ignorant.’

36:6. So that you may warn the people who are ignorant because their forefathers have not been warned (for a long time).

Now, we can plainly see that you are confusing ignorance with will fill misdirection away from GOD.

Yes manipulative. What would you call reusing the same verses in out of context and changing the words of said verses again after it has already been explained that that particular verse is in reference to Jesus and the supposed followers of Jesus who are wolves in sheep's clothing?

So according to the Quran absence of belief in GOD due to ignorance, however punishable by GOD, is seen as an opportunity for them to learn of GOD and not for them to be killed by anyone or by GOD.

But to you who willfully manipulate, you keep wishing it said something it doesn't. The closest you can get evidently, is to keep taking a single verse out of context trying to make it seem to say something it really does not when read correctly. Adding and or paraphrasing is pretty misleading too.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Juma]

So according to the Quran absence of belief in GOD due to ignorance, however punishable by GOD, is seen as an opportunity for them to learn of GOD and not for them to be killed by anyone or by GOD.

Look at how this looks for someone tgat does not believe in god:

"absence of belief in The Giant Silver Rabbit due to ignorance, however punishable by the Giant Silver Rabbit, is seen as an opportunity for them to learn of The Giant Silver Rabbit and not for them to be killed by anyone or by The Giant Silver Rabbit."

Since there is no Giant Silver Rabbit and no god, this is total nonsens.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So according to the Quran absence of belief in GOD due to ignorance, however punishable by GOD, is seen as an opportunity for them to learn of GOD and not for them to be killed by anyone or by GOD.

Look at how this looks for someone tgat does not believe in god:

"absence of belief in The Giant Silver Rabbit due to ignorance, however punishable by the Giant Silver Rabbit, is seen as an opportunity for them to learn of The Giant Silver Rabbit and not for them to be killed by anyone or by The Giant Silver Rabbit."

Since there is no Giant Silver Rabbit and no god, this is total nonsens.

That is opinion. If you don't think there is a creative force of some some sort that at very least set in motion all existence as we know it in some way then that is your right. If you think all existence came to be from absolute nothing without any intervention on any level, then that's your right. If you think you are the highest power in all existence, I guess, that's your right and opinion as well. Just don't expect me to agree with any of them.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg,

The story you reference is similar to the story of Abraham and Isaac. They are references to Faith in GOD without waver. Nothing happened to these men's children in either case. They were found just because of there Faith.

How is that positive moral values

Here's how to write those parabels to reflect good morals. If God talked to Abraham and told him to sacrifice Isaac and he would refuse and reject God. If God then would have swooped in and said "well done my Son, you truly are a good Christian/Jew". And then rewarded him somehow. That would have worked. But as the parable is written now both God and Abraham come across as psychopaths.

Blind obedience is not a virtue. It's a vice. That's the famous Nazi defence in Nürnberg. Didn't work for the Nazis either btw.

What horrible horrible values are you talking about? Why have the goal posts moved from both books not advocating peace and mercy, to both of them advocating peace and mercy above all else but still teach other things?

Ok, here's another one Deuteronomy 22:29.

If you rape a woman the Bible says that the perpetrator should pay a fine (to the woman's guardian, not victim) and then marry the victim. And then everything is forgiven. By today's moral values that is reprehensible, wouldn't you say?

Or that you should murder anybody you come across who do any work on the Sabbath. That looks pretty immoral to me.

Regardless, what horrible teachings are there. I've read both and still do. I admit there is a difference in what is generally observable through the actions of the "followers" of these books, and the teachings of the books themselves, but that isn't what you're saying. I don't use any third party interpretation whatsoever, regardless of source. I read core scripture for myself and comprehend it very well generally. I don't need anyone else's biased opinions polluting my views and perseptions. I know well what the books say generally speaking, but do not have them memorized by any means, just the subject matter.

I don't think you've actually read the Bible. Just putting it out there. There's just no way to read the Bible and not see all the vile shit in it. There's no rose tinted spectacles in the world that can fix this.

Yeah, I didn't say my personal stance was that of utter defencelessness, nor did I say that was the stance in either book. Defence of what one knows is right is of course generally the best policy. That doesn't have to pertain to self, but more towards those who are defenceless, and wrongfully accused/ treated. Turn the other cheek is in reference to self, for the sake of what is right, and to show others the error of of their ways through self sacrifice, and utterly humility. In no way does that mean to stand idly by while the innocent, ignorant, and defenceless get taken advantage of.

You seem to be trying to say that today's leadership is honest and equitable, and so moral codes aren't needed from ancient texts. First, wow, where do you reside that the governing officials are honest, and look out for all, without special privelege and status? What politician isn't corrupt? And even if they where all honest good men, why would that mean that scriptures that whole people hold dear should be thrown out? That's craziness. It is each and every persons right to have faith in a higher power. To remove that right is one of the most closed minded meglomaniacal things I have ever heard. Yeah, no one needs to freshen up on their moral values around here.

Anyway, back to the topic. Both books are similar and promote peace and mercy which you yourself stated. I'm glad we can move on. So I guess the title of the op could be a correct statement.
Cool.

Peace


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What I'm saying is that the moral teachings of any religious text is irrelevant. The books are used as fetishes. People read them as if they're magical spells without reflecting on any of it. Instead they just insert whatever they already believe. What they think the texts should say. I think the evidence is pretty strong for this.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetishism

 

[Juma]

Look at how this looks for someone tgat does not believe in god:

"absence of belief in The Giant Silver Rabbit due to ignorance, however punishable by the Giant Silver Rabbit, is seen as an opportunity for them to learn of The Giant Silver Rabbit and not for them to be killed by anyone or by The Giant Silver Rabbit."

Since there is no Giant Silver Rabbit and no god, this is total nonsens.

That is opinion. If you don't think there is a creative force of some some sort that at very least set in motion all existence as we know it in some way then that is your right. If you think all existence came to be from absolute nothing without any intervention on any level, then that's your right. If you think you are the highest power in all existence, I guess, that's your right and opinion as well. Just don't expect me to agree with any of them.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

And beleiving in ironage myths is your right.

If you dont believe in rational thought why are you here at all?

 

[ronburgundy]

There are probably no texts that do more than the Quran and the Bible to attack this very right you claim is so important and is immoral to attack. A right to have faith in a higher power is meaningless if one is not free to choose what that higher power is or to have no faith in a higher power. Yet, the Quran and the Bible both promote violence against those who choose not the have faith in one particular notion of that higher power.

By your own moral standards, these texts and the God they advocate are heinously immoral.

Not so at all. The ignorant are to be judged by GOD based on their actions just like everyone else. Both books actually mention other Faiths.

Non believers refers to this who know of the will of GOD and choose to go against it. They are blasphemous and turn others from the will of GOD. They are not atheist or anyone else ignorant of GOD.

.

Nonsense. By definition, non-believers are those that do not believe in God and/or do not believe that God's will is what the self-appointed "believers" claim it is. People who know that God exist and know what his will is, are by definition, believers. If the disobey that will then they are just disobedient believers. When kids disobey their parents, do you call them non-believers?

Beside God's acts of genocide against non-believers, the first two commandments are not about actions that be moral or not, but purely about obedience and punishment for the mere act of believing in any other God or merely for paying any homage to any entity other than that particular God, because that God is jealous and vengengful.

This shows blind authoritarian obedience and disregard for any human rights over one's own mind are THE most important and central values promoted by this God and these texts, and take precedence over any sense of actual decency toward other people. This makes these texts not only intellectually but morally incompatible with any civilized society valuing basic human rights and liberties.

 

[ronburgundy]

If you think you are the highest power in all existence, I guess, that's your right and opinion as well.

Abrahamic Theism is the height of narcissistic arrogance in thinking one's own species is the most important creature in material existence and that the ultimate highest power is an entity with a mind and values like their own. By rejecting God, atheism combined with a scientifically supported worldview is an act of humility requiring willingness to accept a far more minuscule role and importance in the cosmos. Your comment shows that the only type of power in the universe you can imagine is one that is a super-human like mind, which shows lack of imagination and incredible hubris.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That is opinion. If you don't think there is a creative force of some some sort that at very least set in motion all existence as we know it in some way then that is your right. If you think all existence came to be from absolute nothing without any intervention on any level, then that's your right. If you think you are the highest power in all existence, I guess, that's your right and opinion as well. Just don't expect me to agree with any of them.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

And beleiving in ironage myths is your right.

If you dont believe in rational thought why are you here at all?

You are the only one assuming I don't use rational thought just because I have faith in a higher power.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Not so at all. The ignorant are to be judged by GOD based on their actions just like everyone else. Both books actually mention other Faiths.

Non believers refers to this who know of the will of GOD and choose to go against it. They are blasphemous and turn others from the will of GOD. They are not atheist or anyone else ignorant of GOD.

.

Nonsense. By definition, non-believers are those that do not believe in God and/or do not believe that God's will is what the self-appointed "believers" claim it is. People who know that God exist and know what his will is, are by definition, believers. If the disobey that will then they are just disobedient believers. When kids disobey their parents, do you call them non-believers?

Beside God's acts of genocide against non-believers, the first two commandments are not about actions that be moral or not, but purely about obedience and punishment for the mere act of believing in any other God or merely for paying any homage to any entity other than that particular God, because that God is jealous and vengengful.

This shows blind authoritarian obedience and disregard for any human rights over one's own mind are THE most important and central values promoted by this God and these texts, and take precedence over any sense of actual decency toward other people. This makes these texts not only intellectually but morally incompatible with any civilized society valuing basic human rights and liberties.

You seem really confused. The first command is to love God. The other is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. No threat, or obedience.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

If you think you are the highest power in all existence, I guess, that's your right and opinion as well.

Abrahamic Theism is the height of narcissistic arrogance in thinking one's own species is the most important creature in material existence and that the ultimate highest power is an entity with a mind and values like their own. By rejecting God, atheism combined with a scientifically supported worldview is an act of humility requiring willingness to accept a far more minuscule role and importance in the cosmos. Your comment shows that the only type of power in the universe you can imagine is one that is a super-human like mind, which shows lack of imagination and incredible hubris.

Wow more assumption. And on top of it you assume I don't believe in scientific theories either.

This is getting pretty ridiculous.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

Nonsense. By definition, non-believers are those that do not believe in God and/or do not believe that God's will is what the self-appointed "believers" claim it is. People who know that God exist and know what his will is, are by definition, believers. If the disobey that will then they are just disobedient believers. When kids disobey their parents, do you call them non-believers?

Beside God's acts of genocide against non-believers, the first two commandments are not about actions that be moral or not, but purely about obedience and punishment for the mere act of believing in any other God or merely for paying any homage to any entity other than that particular God, because that God is jealous and vengengful.

This shows blind authoritarian obedience and disregard for any human rights over one's own mind are THE most important and central values promoted by this God and these texts, and take precedence over any sense of actual decency toward other people. This makes these texts not only intellectually but morally incompatible with any civilized society valuing basic human rights and liberties.

You seem really confused. The first command is to love God. The other is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. No threat, or obedience.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The first rule of Fight Club is not to talk about Fight Club. But people talk about Fight Club all the time, because fictional rules need not be obeyed.

The commandments you speak of appear in a book. There is no reason whatsoever to consider that book to be in any way special; and there is plenty of good evidence in the text itself to indicate that it is largely fictional - it describes events that contravene physical law, and real things have never been reliably observed to do that.

So the commandment, like the instruction not to discuss Fight Club, is not something real people need to worry about - much to the relief of 20th Century Fox, who rely on people talking about their movie to increase box office and DVD sales.

Love for fictional entities is a recipe for disaster and heartbreak.

And a commandment to love someone is impossible to obey, and shows an almost psychopathic desire to manipulate; Any entity that commanded people to love it would be unworthy of that love, even if it were possible for people to love on command.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nonsense. By definition, non-believers are those that do not believe in God and/or do not believe that God's will is what the self-appointed "believers" claim it is. People who know that God exist and know what his will is, are by definition, believers. If the disobey that will then they are just disobedient believers. When kids disobey their parents, do you call them non-believers?

Beside God's acts of genocide against non-believers, the first two commandments are not about actions that be moral or not, but purely about obedience and punishment for the mere act of believing in any other God or merely for paying any homage to any entity other than that particular God, because that God is jealous and vengengful.

This shows blind authoritarian obedience and disregard for any human rights over one's own mind are THE most important and central values promoted by this God and these texts, and take precedence over any sense of actual decency toward other people. This makes these texts not only intellectually but morally incompatible with any civilized society valuing basic human rights and liberties.

You seem really confused. The first command is to love God. The other is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. No threat, or obedience.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What religion are you talking about here?

The Christian Bible is a bit different than your assertion. In the Christian Bible, the first four commandments are:
... You shall have no other gods before Me.
... You shall not make idols.
... You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
... Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
And there is certainly a threat and punishment dictated of death by stoning to be follow by eternal hellfire for disobeying any of them. The same for the other six of the "Big Ten" along with hundreds of other laws.

Of course reality is that Christians pretty much ignore all this shit and sorta make up their own "rules" to fit with social norms, changing them when social norms change even though their new "rules" are in direct conflict with the book they claim to be following.

 

[DBT]

Your position, your faith doesn't permit you to acknowledge what is quite obvious.

No verse you quoted showed intolerance or lack of mercy in any way.

Of course they do.

Take this one for example; "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." - Quran (3:56)

This displays complete intolerance toward non believers. Not for any transgression against Islam, not for inciting hatred, not for stirring up trouble, but simply for not believing in the teachings of Islam.

Which threatens not only 'terrible agony in this world' but also the hereafter. This is clearly not an example of mercy or tolerance.

It is easy to be tolerant toward those who share your beliefs, but much harder when dealing with those who question or reject the faith.

Now Allah was truly merciful, He would be merciful toward all people.

There is no mercy to be found in that verse, or many like it.

And who are you to say that God cannot give different commands based on time and culture? God is immutable, man is not.

It's not a question of what can or cannot do, but what He is claimed to be: merciful and therefore tolerant.

So we have that claim on the on one hand, but verses that clearly contradict the claim of a merciful God on the other.

Can you see the problem in terms of logic. Either one is true and the other false. Both claims cannot be true.

Anyway, it's your move if you wish to continue to be manipulative.

Manipulative? Not at all. A claim was made and that claim was then put to question by using the very same source material. Which appears to show a contradiction.

There you go taking things out of context again. Are you even aware that that is one of the same verses you took out of context last time. For like the tenth time, stop conflating the ignorant with the willingly misleading. They are not the same at all.

No, I pointed out that context does nothing to change the meaning of the verses, or even soften them in the least. The verses are harsh and unforgiving, reflecting an attitude of violence and retribution. Mercy is seeking peaceful resolution and forgiveness of past transgressions.

The verses I quoted express none of these qualities. Nor does context justify the attitude they display.

There must be an odd definition of 'mercy' being used if this is defined as merciful: Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - regardless of context.

The context of this verse is clearly related to non believers for their 'sin' of disbelief. It does not express mercy or tolerance.

[
But to you who willfully manipulate, you keep wishing it said something it doesn't. The closest you can get evidently, is to keep taking a single verse out of context trying to make it seem to say something it really does not when read correctly. Adding and or paraphrasing is pretty misleading too.

There is no manipulation. The verses are quotes from the Quran. Context does not change their meaning, attitude or demeanour. These verses are not a reflection of mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation or tolerance of disbelief.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Your position, your faith doesn't permit you to acknowledge what is quite obvious.

No verse you quoted showed intolerance or lack of mercy in any way.

Of course they do.

Take this one for example; "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." - Quran (3:56)

This displays complete intolerance toward non believers. Not for any transgression against Islam, not for inciting hatred, not for stirring up trouble, but simply for not believing in the teachings of Islam.

Which threatens not only 'terrible agony in this world' but also the hereafter. This is clearly not an example of mercy or tolerance.

It is easy to be tolerant toward those who share your beliefs, but much harder when dealing with those who question or reject the faith.

Now Allah was truly merciful, He would be merciful toward all people.

There is no mercy to be found in that verse, or many like it.

And who are you to say that God cannot give different commands based on time and culture? God is immutable, man is not.

It's not a question of what can or cannot do, but what He is claimed to be: merciful and therefore tolerant.

So we have that claim on the on one hand, but verses that clearly contradict the claim of a merciful God on the other.

Can you see the problem in terms of logic. Either one is true and the other false. Both claims cannot be true.

Anyway, it's your move if you wish to continue to be manipulative.

Manipulative? Not at all. A claim was made and that claim was then put to question by using the very same source material. Which appears to show a contradiction.

There you go taking things out of context again. Are you even aware that that is one of the same verses you took out of context last time. For like the tenth time, stop conflating the ignorant with the willingly misleading. They are not the same at all.

No, I pointed out that context does nothing to change the meaning of the verses, or even soften them in the least. The verses are harsh and unforgiving, reflecting an attitude of violence and retribution. Mercy is seeking peaceful resolution and forgiveness of past transgressions.

The verses I quoted express none of these qualities. Nor does context justify the attitude they display.

There must be an odd definition of 'mercy' being used if this is defined as merciful: Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - regardless of context.

The context of this verse is clearly related to non believers for their 'sin' of disbelief. It does not express mercy or tolerance.

[
But to you who willfully manipulate, you keep wishing it said something it doesn't. The closest you can get evidently, is to keep taking a single verse out of context trying to make it seem to say something it really does not when read correctly. Adding and or paraphrasing is pretty misleading too.

There is no manipulation. The verses are quotes from the Quran. Context does not change their meaning, attitude or demeanour. These verses are not a reflection of mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation or tolerance of disbelief.

Okay. If I take a sentence from a paragraph that's taking it out of context. If I change the actual words into what I want that's manipulation. Doing both all while clamping ing not to for your own false point is being dishonest.

You won't listen to reason. Assert false meaning to things, to your liking, and you lie about it.

Obviously you aren't interested in the truth or peace but only your atheist agenda.

I'm done, as I don't care to waste my time on people who pretend like they are deaf dumb and blind, and or have the reading comprehension skills of an infant, or both. I don't care if you're lying anymore at this point.

I with you the best.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

If I change the actual words into what I want that's manipulation. Doing both all while clamping ing not to for your own false point is being dishonest

Where have I done that? Please give an example.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You seem really confused. The first command is to love God. The other is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. No threat, or obedience.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What religion are you talking about here?

The Christian Bible is a bit different than your assertion. In the Christian Bible, the first four commandments are:
... You shall have no other gods before Me.
... You shall not make idols.
... You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
... Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
And there is certainly a threat and punishment dictated of death by stoning to be follow by eternal hellfire for disobeying any of them. The same for the other six of the "Big Ten" along with hundreds of other laws.

Of course reality is that Christians pretty much ignore all this shit and sorta make up their own "rules" to fit with social norms, changing them when social norms change even though their new "rules" are in direct conflict with the book they claim to be following.

Try reading the new testament, or the teachings of the Christ.

All old commands or laws come into place naturally to any who know and love God.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All old commands or laws come into place naturally to any who know and love God.

WTF does this even mean? Are you saying that you understand God better than God does himself. So well that you know which bits God misswrote and know what he really meant when he wrote the vile passages? Presumptuous!!!

BTW, the other day I had a conversation with a Swedish Christian who made the first sensible argument I've ever heard a Christian make. She called herself "new Christian". Christians in these parts are like a rare bird. She said that she's aware of all the immorality and horrible things in the Bible. She says that the Bible was written by humans which means that it of course includes human idiocies. She says that it's not the Bible the matters but the "Christian tradition". Whatever she felt Christianity was to her is what Christianity is. 0% rational or logical requirements. And no need for it. That freed herself up to have whatever moral beliefs she wanted. She didn't need to defend anything in the Bible. She could cherry pick at her hearts content, or twist and misinterpret whatever in any way. She said this type of Christianity is open to atheists as well. She's a member for the sense of community.

No, she didn't make me convert. Nor do I find this kind of faith particularly attractive. But I couldn't argue against it. What I liked about it is that this is the first Christian I've talked to who is honest about her faith.

 

[skepticalbip]

What religion are you talking about here?

The Christian Bible is a bit different than your assertion. In the Christian Bible, the first four commandments are:
... You shall have no other gods before Me.
... You shall not make idols.
... You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
... Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
And there is certainly a threat and punishment dictated of death by stoning to be follow by eternal hellfire for disobeying any of them. The same for the other six of the "Big Ten" along with hundreds of other laws.

Of course reality is that Christians pretty much ignore all this shit and sorta make up their own "rules" to fit with social norms, changing them when social norms change even though their new "rules" are in direct conflict with the book they claim to be following.

Try reading the new testament, or the teachings of the Christ.

I have. The new testament god revealed in Revelations is much more unforgiving, vengeful, and sadistic than the old testament god. As far as the teachings of the Christ, it turns out that I don't know a single Christian who follows Jesus' teachings, including you apparently. Jesus said that you must sell all your belongings and give the proceeds to the poor - you apparently still have your computer. Also you are supposed to abandon your parents, wife, children, brothers, and sisters and follow him. I don't know anyone who calls themselves a Christian who has done this either so, according to Jesus, they won't make it to heaven.

Apparently you ascribe to the new Christianity that I mentioned:

Of course reality is that Christians pretty much ignore all this shit and sorta make up their own "rules" to fit with social norms, changing them when social norms change even though their new "rules" are in direct conflict with the book they claim to be following.

All old commands or laws come into place naturally to any who know and love God.

I'm sorry but that doesn't even pretend to make sense. Care to elaborate?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

ditto.