Please don't confuse intelligent, moderate christians with these people.Out of context, in direct violation with other parts of the bible strongly discouraging misquoting.This would constitute a test, and thus be ineligible for divine intervention.As would this.

-snip-

Oh, what a coincidence.
Not.

I find it amazing how well the Christians have made the bible insusceptible to loopholes. With this, they fortify their religion to almost undeniable impossibility of deniability. (That is now a word. Or else.)
It's like a six year old saying he is invincible in a game cops and robbers.

Just to sum it up, the founders of Christianity are incredibly intelligent, but use their intelligence to manipulate people into doing what they want them to.
Then there are the second generation of Christians, they are so illogical and ignorant that they just believe what they are told without question.

As I said: please don't mistake moderates for zealots.
Secondly, it's bad etiquette to quote the post directly above you when you reply to it.
Thirdly, I have yet to see you back up your statement that anyone has made the bible insusceptible to loopholes. If you claim to represent the logical, rational and evidence using 'side' of society, please use those things properly.
Also, it is somewhat uneducated to immediately assume things about me based on the similarity in naming of a section of my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

Oh, no, you don't understand. That is my opinion, people have these.
How many types of bible are there? A lot. They have been edited, admit it.
Even if it hadn't, I am sure the original writer(s) would have had plenty of time to think it through.

I am not taking sides, I have my own side, it's called 'Opinion'
I do not represent a group or demographic, I represent myself.

...What. I don't see how I or you did anything wrong, and how does that have anything to do with the discussion?

You just made that up as a filler for your post.
Although I do agree, sorry.

I am not "Immediately assuming", and I do not care what you believe, that is up to you. And you only.


EDIT
This is going to get out of hand.
Religion debates are a BAD idea.

I understand you have an opinion. That is why I am attempting to provide logical and rational arguments to express that my opinion is in opposition to yours.This is called exclusive language, and is used when positioning the reader in an 'us and them' type argument. In this argument, the reader is moved to perceive the writer's opponent as an opposing group (possibly via the use of straw men) and is thus urged to align themselves with the writer. I also don't represent a group or demographic. It's unfortunate that you talk as if I do. I find it interesting that you decided to say I didn't understand that people had opinions, was required to admit to things.It annoys me when discussions of this nature are undertaken using arguments that rely on claims rather than actual backing. For example, your point on the bible is stated as fact rather than as an argument. You then draw a comparison to children and make claims as to motive and maturity, drawing on emotional response rather than intelligent response. This is similar in goal to your use of enlarged text and separated lines highlighting a phrase where you imply that you expected my post. This of course, segues into your point on the bible, thus implying that I am said "six year old saying he is invincible in a game cops and robbers".I have a long history of politely suggesting that people conform to the etiquette of the forums. Why would I suddenly decide that this is the time to begin using polite suggestions to discredit my opponent rather than his arguments? If you felt that this impugned upon your person and unfairly tilted the argument, then I will remove this and all other pieces of evidence of that part of the post ever existing.Your writing as if I am representative of christians which modify the bible to their liking suggests otherwise to me. If this was not your intention, then I apologise.What I believe may be up to me, but the considerations I take are a combination of all the experiences that I have partaken of that are available to my mind. Thus, while you may not care what I believe, I care what you believe and that you are able to articulate it as best you can such that I may understand it as fully as possible.Going to the sole selective entry high school in my state allows me to converse with a wide variety of people. A majority of my closest friends are atheist and many of them were fairly proactive in their beliefs regarding this when I met them. Religion debates are fully capable of being intelligent and meritorious on the condition that all parties involved are willing to take the effort to use fairly unemotional, rational arguments as well as staying polite and refraining from insult.

It's not the bible that's the big problem really, it's the way many people interpret it.

The loss of information between the original intent, the original written language (hebrew, latin, greek, etc.), the translations through time and the preconceived ideas of the reader contribute greatly to this. For example, where another Christian may read a passage and interpret it as condemning homosexuality, I read it as advising against sexual acts generally associated with male homosexuality due to the risk of infection in times where the most modern treatments were invasive and/or had low efficacy and/or success rate.

No. No. No.

You don't understand, not at all.

To put this simply, and quickly:
I respect what you believe, and how you think, my beliefs are my opinion and my business, likewise for yours. (Or so I would recommend)
The way I think is totally different from yours, and I guess we will have to live with that.

The way I think is logically, e.g. From two facts I can rely on another being true, or false. Think about it, and you may understand me.

Oh I understand that you're saying you think logically. I am saying that the way you're talking appears to show that you believe I don't. Also, I believe that in my respecting your beliefs, I should attempt to properly understand them. I understand beliefs better when they are backed with logical and rational arguments.

That's it, my beliefs are that of a rational argument, that is my belief, that is how I believe what I do.

Anyway. Good night, it's 11:19 here.

Dylan, you can't go out and criticise other people's beliefs and then when questioned yourself make a post that is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
The fact that your post is simply your opinion doesn't make it inviolable. You are claiming that the WBC's opinions are hurtful and incorrect, why is your own opinion suddenly completely closed for questioning?

The complete denial of any opposing viewpoint and refusal to, when asked, back up any of your points with actual evidence doesn't suggest a rational or logical approach to me.
If you don't have the evidence then it is not logical to form conclusions from it, and if you do have the evidence it will only make your argument stronger so there is no logical reason not to provide it when you are asked to.

It is the same time here, coincidentally enough.
Metal Chao: It is rather late for him and he may have other engagements to attend to, so his lack of provided evidence is excusable for now at the very least.

Okay, wow, fairly big derailment here bordering on a small forest fire involving Christianity. Stoppit.

Anon states that WBC have set up honey trap machines to collect I.P. addresses so they can sue whoever tries to LOIC/ do whatever to them, they have also quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall in their "press release": "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I reckon that it was either a forgery or one or two misguided anon posting before anyone else wanted to commit to it. Either way loads of smoke blowing so far, we can only wait and see whether or not we'll see Phelps' house in smouldering ruins, you can never tell with Anon, but that quote is interesting.

I for one would like to see them ignored. They have the right to freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean we have to listen to it. Hell, you've even got the Patriot Guards motorcycle club at every funeral the WBC say they will picket. If you see them on the news, change the channel. Let them waste away and be forgotten.

OoT: I wonder how the Bible would be really read if it was read the way it was supposed to be YEARS ago.
---------------------

IT: I saw this in NationStates, wow massive troll-war's going to begin soon. Although would be hilarious if there was a 3rd side who'll take advantage of both. Either way WBC's Honey-Trap won't work with millions of Anons wearing masks and......ah screw that.



inb4 casualties

The problem is that a lot of anon users will be using proxies and that it costs a lot of money to actually try and sue a lot of people. Depending on the outcome of the case involving the law firm that was working for the music companies, they may end up having to show that they have the funds to actually go through with all of the cases they start.