You are focusing on the literal only, rather than the understanding.
Such a discussion is like arguing over if the matrix movie is real or not. Fine, have at it. Argue and debate with those who say it's literally
real about how it is not literally real. Devote your life to a "side" if you like. We can argue back and forth, and we can point out the bad
things and evils each side has done "in the name of their side".
But oddly enough, if you were to take a peak at what Jesus and the bible says, you would find that all the evil things you point out on both those
literal sides will be warned against, will be told will happen, will be told how not to do it.
Who do you think this is referring to?
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
iniquity means sin. Meaning, they do it by breaking commandments. So, look around you. Who is it that you see doing many things in the name of
god/Jesus and religion, but are actually sins? Like, killing people, manipulating them and so forth?
As such, if Jesus and the bible directly warns about these things, how can one logically attribute those actions to what the bible says? Because
they are able to spit a few verses to you out of context and as you have no understanding are stuck only with their claims to argue against?
If the bible was actually telling those people to do those things, then I guess I could see your point. But it doesn't, it says the opposite and
warns against them.
It would be like me saying - well freedom is wrong and sucks, just like at what GWB did in the name of it! That of course would be ignorant.
So you can argue back and forth about the literal if you want, but I think I'd rather focus on the understanding.
[edit on 2-4-2009 by badmedia]