Quote Originally Posted by sd6515
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
No the history books aren't bad because of Nazi Germany, but Hitler and his followers are.

The bible doesn't condone violence, really?
Taken from Does The Bible Preach Violence?

1)Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.


2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.


3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.


4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.


5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.


6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.


7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.
Rwanda was caused at the hands of a Christian fanatic with the support of a number of Bishops and priests.

The list of atrocities caused at the hands of religion is far to numerous to list here.

Your argument is extremely flawed.
JaggedEdge Reviewed by JaggedEdge on . 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