Ah, I see I was mistaken.
I shouldn't have said "a little
Leaving aside just a few points:
Your insistence that anyone who reads the bible will understand God's word (despite the fact that I, and thousands of people like me,
read the bible but prefer our fiction in paperback)...
The fact that you had the temerity to inaccurately correct my grammer (you said "Christianity", therefore I said "it". It's an "it",
you see. Not a "they". Is that clear?)...
Your declaration that "Morons doing stupid things in the name of God is not to be mistaken with the religion of 'Christianity'"actually
refers, in the examples I gave, to the Catholic Church, and the Pope in particular, and if they can't be considered Christians, who the hell can?
I'll ignore all those - partially because it'd be a bit cruel to pick on the small errors when there are much larger ones, and partially because I
wouldn't want to be called "retarded" again. Ouch.
Firstly, you've got to stop picking up on hyperbole and humour and treating them like serious arguments - I know that scientists and rationalists
aren't the same thing as atheists, but you'll find that most scientists and rationalists are
atheists. And I wrote the examples in the full
knowledge that they were self-evident, jakko - but some of us feel the need to add some measure of entertainment or informality to our posts.
I do know that the love of God is bigger and deeper then any of us can imagine
- you don't know
that, unless you have secret evidence that you're keeping from the rest of us. You believe
it. Not, my credible
friend, the same thing. And if you only believe
it, then you must rationally accept the possibility that you are wrong. And if there is a
possibility that you are wrong, then you must admit your faith is flawed.
And if your faith is flawed, how can it be a suitable basis for your philosophical and moral codes?
Thirdly, as I stated earlier, I am no stranger to the bible. I know it's easier for you to believe
- there's that word again - that everyone
else is stupider than you, but it's simply not the case. Unfortunately, that negates your "the answer is in the bible, you've never read the
bible, you can't possibly understand my point" argument.
But I do, jakko, I do. That's why I can summon up this little nugget to answer your question regarding NephraTari's earlier point about
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19 something, if I remember correctly. Of course, there's also a proverb about "In the house of the righteous is much treasure", so you
can conveniently change your stance depending on the situation. Won't that be fun?
But then, you'll probably protest that the Bible was written by morons and "is not to be mistaken with the religion of 'Christianity'" either.
If you're just going to attack my posts with denial and insults, jakko, then you'd better be damn sure that you've got your facts straight - and I
the facts, not just the ones that suit your argument. Of course, if you really want to go toe-to-toe on the contents of the bible,
contact Kano and set up a debate. I'm sure it would be an interesting experience.
If not, I suggest you scroll up the page and read some of my earlier points regarding the fundamental "evidencelessness" of religion - particularly
the bit about the evangelists spoiling it for everyone - and we'll let CS' thread get back on-topic.