Originally Posted by Foxie

Nope. But i'm curious little thing.

Originally Posted by Foxie

Bible IS just a book in the exact same sense that 100 and 1 nights (arabian storybook. ) is a book.

Originally Posted by Foxie

Nope. But i'm curious little thing.


To Chronos:
I told you. Do not feed me the ''it's symbolic'' bullshit.
It's not passing through any more. Bible is the absolute word of god and ment to be taken -----literally------. Ask any priest or read the book itself. Both tell you this.

Refusing an argument because you have no valid counter-argument are you?
Tell me where it clearly and without doubt states in the bible that everything there should be taken literally. Without taking it out of it's context which you seem to enjoy to do.

Bible IS just a book in the exact same sense that 100 and 1 nights (arabian storybook. ) is a book.

And if the psalms are songs, they sure have horrid lyrics and in no way melody at all to them. And Psalm certainly does not translate to the word of ''song''. Look it up ye ignorant foo'. I pity you.
Besides, look up the word oops-i-forgot-what-i-said-earlier. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. But you can understand it in any case. You claimed before that bible = truth. So now you're claiming it isn't? But a clever analogy that can be interpretted freely depending on which part you read it? WHAT THE FUCK?!

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The word psalms is derived from the Greek: Psalmoi, originally meaning "songs sung to a harp", from psallein "play on a stringed instrument", Ψαλμοί.

No, not exactly song, but close enough. -.-
I believe that the bible is true, however that doesn't mean the authors can't take artistic freedom when it comes to the books that are clearly poethical. Now when was the last time you took a poethical text seriously regarding anything scientific? Also I suppose you study the bible more so you can distinguish between books that are historical and books that are poethical in nature.

You claim witchburnings ended because religion. That's bullshit. The horrid crimes against women STARTED SOLELY BECAUSE OF FUCKING RELIGION. They ended because common sense overcame religious blindness.

I already stated that the witchburnings started because of religion. I didn't say they ended because of religion, I said religion played a role in stopping it. I even gave you an example of a christian person who opposed the witchburnings.

And you said it yourself with the crusades part. People got fed up with pope (head of religion. By the way, it wasn't only one pope who ordered the crusades.) which is INCIDENTALLY the head of christian religion. Again, stopped because of COMMON SENSE, not religion.

Actually it was a combination of both, people started using common sense when reading the bible and when they did that they found no support for the crusades, at all. I think I already posted that though, obviously you choose to ignore things you can't answer. Regarding the pope, it's true that he is the head of the catholic church, but not of christianity as a whole, however since I can't find any proof in the bible that there should even be such a person I'm not even accepting him as the head of christianity.

Oh, and thanks for the laugh of the day with your ''grand canyon was formed in 40 days'' comment. I laughed. Hard. And i'm dead fucking serious. Even at the fact that you brought up someone who actually wrote a book taking such ridiculous belief to even THOUGHT. You know, they tested that with small scale. They flowed ginormous amount of water in HIGH PRESSURE (100bar) (that is impossible to be formed by natural phenomena.) for 30 days straight on a granite slab only inch thick that was the same granite that was in the grand canyon. You know what it managed to do during those 30 days? It got half a millimeter off from where they started. (granite is fucking hard.) They made the test to approximate the age of Grand Canyon. The age is, without a single doubt, huge.
It would be hard to do such a massive gorge on the ground even with NUKES. To claim it was done by water in 40 days is beyond ridiculous.

First of all he never writes that it was formed in 40 days, I'm not stupid enough to believe that, and neither is the author, what he states though, is that there is evidence and observations that supports the notion that many geological formations can be formed without needing the huge timescale that uniformitarians claim they need. Maybe you should actually read the book before you judge it?
I'd want the source of the bolded statement, if you please.

By the way. Drink poisonous substances, handle snakes and all that bullshit. All believers of god can do that, it's in the fucking bible. It's not a threat to ''go die!'' or anything. Of course you won't be harmed. You believe the rest of the bible anyway, so why can't that part be true? I'm only asking a confirmation to a part of bible's truthfulness.

Where does it state that believers of god can drink poison and handle snake? I would also like to know what that other "bullshit" is.

Originally Posted by The_Legendary_Ninja

Ok come on now, this is getting rather stupid and pretty flamilicious at the moment...

Just let it rest.