Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid

[sd6515]

Then I suppose you don't consider the idea of chopping people up into little pieces for not believing in God, and killing everyone in a whole town of non-believers, is nothing bad. And I suppose you don't consider the support of sexism and slavery bad either. Oh well.

I don't, not in the time that the Bible was written, the Bible doesn't preach to do these things it was what was considered acceptable and moral in that time, there are stills laws on the books in the US restricting women and minorities rights but that does not mean that we now condone it in fact we are working daily to remove them. But this argument sounds like a typical atheist rant which makes no sense when thought through a logical mind, are history books bad because they talk about the horrible act committed by the nazzis etc., no. Not to mention that the parts in the Bible you are reffering to are more of a history of our religion and definately not saying how we should act as Christians. Sure there are insane fundalmentalist Christians out there, like Bush and his war, but that is not what the Bible preaches to us in any way.

But anyways if we all were high all the time every thing would be a lot better. Well I'm of to smokem peace pipe

sd6515 Reviewed by sd6515 on 09-10-2007. Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid A lot of people justify their belief in a certain religion by claiming that there is basically no difference between believing in religious texts and believing in commonly accepted historical texts. They'll say something like, "What's the difference between believing in the Bible and believing all the written accounts of the Civil War, for example? You choose to believe those accounts, even though you weren't actually there, just like I choose to believe in the Bible even though I wasn't Rating: 5