Most of these points I completely agree with. I do not believe people should suffer eternal damnation for not believing in God. I don't agree that Christianity or other religions should concentrate on that because I do not believe this is completely true. One major reason is there is many reason not to believe in the Bible, most if not all are not even in our control, be it raised in a different religion or country or any other reason or situation that is not our control. Because of my views I am a Christian but do not belong to or attend a church, I carry my own beliefs in God and Jesus and do not judge any others, I believe that God will damn you for working against him militously as a believer, but not for simply not believing, I do not agree with this at all. In fact I believe the Bible instructs us not to judge which includes telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe.
Also I do agree with you that even as a believer myself I do not accept the Bible as fact like I do a history book, I believe in it because of my faith and as a whole not every individual story or fact. I also agree that it is crazy how so many believers think they are renouncing there faith in some way by denying that anything in the Bible or our history as a religion could be different then we were taught.
And finally I also believe that some of the worst people and attrocities were/are commited by religous people in the name of religion. From the Crusades to the radical Islam to fundalmentalist Christians going around telling everyone they are going to hell.
Sorry if I came off really agressive and defensive in other posts but igorant arguments tend to send me into a rant. I am not speaking of you when I say this but some of the other posts I had responded to. I thoughly enjoyed reading your logical and on point response and as you see I actually agree with most of what you are saying. I just went off on tangents in response to other post about this topic and apologize for that but when people quote the Bible who don't believe in it as support for there argument using out of context verses totaling less then 1 page of over a 1000 page book, which using that logic, you could change the meaning of even the most accurate history book. And then responding to logical refutes of there misinformed, misguided, or simply uneducated views with don't tell me tell Thomas Paine it gets me a little touchy. It is ignorant people like that on all sides of any topic that leave us all stuck ranting and preaching our views to each other expecting them to listen to us when we don't listen to them, it leaves all of us stuck and damning each other which is not in the best interest of anyone and does not lead to anything productive.
sd6515 Reviewed by sd6515 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