A response to the video "Why does every intelligent Christian disobey Jesus"?

[Grimm]

Assuming that the bible has any truth to it, it would seem to follow that the early believers did thing that Jesus, existential being or not, intended on relinquishing of possessions totally. 

(Regardless, it's obvious the Catholic monastic tradition also supports it:  "Poverty, chastity, and obedience" are intended to bring one closer to god, and the cites for Poverty in this vow encompass all of the verses offered here.  Is the dissenting voice saying that he's right and the entire Catholic tradition is wrong?  How can we tell the difference, and why should we believe him?)

[Operator_A25]

Bringing up other passages in the Bible and asking me whether they are literal or metaphorical is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

AlexBP,

In your OP You state:

First of all the video attempts to prove that Christians disobey Jesus.  In this it fails because it misinterprets what Jesus said.  To see why we must understand the concept of a metaphor, which is a type of figurative language wherein someone says one thing that's not literally true because it illustrates a point in a vivid way.

Therefore, the question of how you determine the difference between literal and metaphorical passages in the bible is on-topic and fair game.

Your failure to supply an effective and consistent means of discerning between metaphor and literal passages means that you have failed to supply a convincing counter argument to the videos. Your claim of "victory" is completely without merit, in my opinion.

What I think you are doing is attempting to dodge valid questions raised regarding your supposed ability to correctly interpret these passages.

[protestantson]

Whether or not the scripture was to be taken literally or metaphorically is insignificant, because a person can draw a conclusion based on one or the other or both.
My question is if when taken literally, why does it bother someone so much? And what does it say about the contents of our hearts?

Velkyn, I'll have to address your question concerning Acts later this evening

[Agamemnon]

Whether or not the scripture was to be taken literally or metaphorically is insignificant, because a person can draw a conclusion based on one or the other or both.

True enough--The conclusion I draw in all three cases is that the bible is mythology.

My question is if when taken literally, why does it bother someone so much? And what does it say about the contents of our hearts?

It doesn't bother me at all that someone takes the bible literally. If they want to believe all that silliness, that's fine. What bothers me is when people take the bible literally and try to force people to conform to their literal interpretation. That should bother everyone. When they start stoning people for adultery and cutting off people's hands for crimes, then I'm sorry, but I care about that.

In fact, even if they don't take the bible literally but they try to force their religion on me or someone else then I'm not going to like it. I really don't care what their interpretation is.

[velkyn]

Whether or not the scripture was to be taken literally or metaphorically is insignificant, because a person can draw a conclusion based on one or the other or both.
My question is if when taken literally, why does it bother someone so much? And what does it say about the contents of our hearts?

Velkyn, I'll have to address your question concerning Acts later this evening

If something is taken literally and touted as literal and there is nothing to indicate that it should be taken literally, it's a lie.  That certainly does say about the content of a person's character. 

and if taking something metaphorically or literally is "insignificant" then you are quite fine with the idea that your Jesus never existed and did not literally "save" you?  Or that yoru god isn't real?  Or that there is no real heavenly reward?  You see, I don't believe you when you say that it is "insignificant".

And no hurry.  I know that everyone has a life outside of the forums.

[Gimpy]

My question is if when taken literally, why does it bother someone so much?

It "bothers" someone because the collection of stories then not only contradict themselves but facts as we know them to be true.

Someone who believes out right fabrications as literal and occurring reality, and then indoctrinating others, especially children, into those falsehoods sets up a very dangerous society.

To believe the bible literally is to accept as "truth" then things that cannot possibly be real, and have been proven to be false.

And what does it say about the contents of our hearts?

To me it says that person has a very cruel and inhumane heart.

[Hatter23]

Aren't you killing the germs and bacteria when you wash your hands? Aren't you killing the grass by stepping on them?

Yes.. and we have determined that these are not bad things. In fact, killing germs is something we've determined to be good (for us). So what?

So how about thinking from the murderers' point of view? For example Hitler. He determined that killing Jews was good for the Nazis as a whole.  

Yes, morality is relative. A social structure growing out of somewhat conflicted evolutionary elements. It isn't something absolute dictated by a Deity. Yes, that does suck.

BTW you are going to die. That sucks too. No Heaven, no afterlife, just death.

These are absolutes that few want to confront.

[protestantson]

I hope my punctuation was correct. I wish not to provoke the wrath of GIMPY  :shrug

No, it was fine. And it wasn't that hard, was it? Something tells me by your continual pouting over it that my comments struck a truth nerve?

No Gimp, I just wasn't aware that it was so important.

[protestantson]

If something is taken literally and touted as literal and there is nothing to indicate that it should be taken literally, it's a lie.  That certainly does say about the content of a person's character. 

and if taking something metaphorically or literally is "insignificant" then you are quite fine with the idea that your Jesus never existed and did not literally "save" you?  Or that yoru god isn't real?  Or that there is no real heavenly reward?  You see, I don't believe you when you say that it is "insignificant".

And no hurry.  I know that everyone has a life outside of the forums.

I'm saying that it is really not important how you or I came to our conclusions when interpreting
the scripture at hand, what really matters is the meaning that is extracted from it. In your case it may support your claim to fallacy and absurdness, but in mine, it leads me to believe in a form of selflessness and charity, and whats wrong with that?

[protestantson]

My question is if when taken literally, why does it bother someone so much?

It "bothers" someone because the collection of stories then not only contradict themselves but facts as we know them to be true.

Someone who believes out right fabrications as literal and occurring reality, and then indoctrinating others, especially children, into those falsehoods sets up a very dangerous society.

To believe the bible literally is to accept as "truth" then things that cannot possibly be real, and have been proven to be false.

And what does it say about the contents of our hearts?

To me it says that person has a very cruel and inhumane heart.

Gimp, don't we currently live in a dangerous society? Wouldn't you agree that your statement
is a little extreme? I agree with you that religious extremist pose a threat. And yeah, seeing a four year
old child holding up a sign that says "God hates fags" makes me want to vomit, because these people are teaching their children hypocrisy and hate. If I raise my kids with the values of love and honesty, where is the danger in that?

[Ambassador Pony]

Raising kids to value belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, or lack of evidence, is child abuse, IMO. What a disgusting indvidual who would disadvantage a child like that. Poor kid, poor society.

 

[Grimm]

Gimp, don't we currently live in a dangerous society? Wouldn't you agree that your statement
is a little extreme? I agree with you that religious extremist pose a threat. And yeah, seeing a four year
old child holding up a sign that says "God hates fags" makes me want to vomit, because these people are teaching their children hypocrisy and hate. If I raise my kids with the values of love and honesty, where is the danger in that?

I do not presume to answer for Gimpy, but I have to say:  we don't live in a dangerous society.  We just don't.  Crime rates continue to decline.  Here's a simple reference from wikipedia (Crime in the United States):

The year 2005 was overall the safest year in the past thirty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991 and 2005.
Recently, however, the homicide rate has stagnated.[7] While the homicide rate decreased continuously between 1991 and 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000, it has remained level through 2005.
Despite the recent stagnation of the homicide rate, however, property and violent crimes overall have continued to decrease, though at a considerably slower pace than in the 1990s.[7] Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2004 as in 1969, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1966. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1974, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.[6]

Our fear of crime has certainly risen, pushed in no small part by those who gain an advantage from doing so - news programs gain viewership, churches gain members; if the world is going to hell, after all, shouldn't we be turning to God (or so they say)?  In truth, every year gets safer, in aggregate.

There is nothing wrong with raising your kids with good values.  However, raising them in a Christian religious tradition at the very least teaches them that disobedience results in everlasting torment, and that certain innocuous behaviours are absolutely terrible.  If your child is homosexual, for instance, and you teach that homosexuality results in the everlasting fire... what are you teaching?  If you teach your kids that those who don't follow the Christian tradition are damned, or those who don't believe as you do are wrong... what then?  If you teach your children that the world is six thousand years old, and that they should not believe anyone who tells them otherwise, what have you really done?

Kids are impressionable.  You likely believe because you were brought up to believe... and if you can see the extreme that is the Phelps clan (your God Hates Fags example), then you should realize that even something that seems moderate is the same nonsense wrapped in a more appealing wrapper.  Phelps believes pretty much as you do - God saved the world through Christ, and all the rest.. he just takes those passages where God is vicious and retributive and has built his faith around them.  It's worth noting that, to date, the Phelps clan has never defended themselves when attacked (save verbally) - they've simply endured and offered their message, turning the other cheek at every opportunity.

So.  By your own metric.. where's the harm in it?  If you see harm, how is it you can't see why we say they're not all that much different than any other religious community... just more obvious about it?  The Catholics decry homosexuality and turn these people out of their church; just because they're not holding signs that say "God Hates Fags" doesn't mean they're not practicing that sort of bigotry.  Protestant churches run people away from Planned Parenthood clinics, where they can get advice on fertility, birth control pills, and condoms; abortion is the least part of their work and most people going to those clinics need health advice, not abortions.  Bigotry at work again!

Faith is not inocuous.  Else atheists would have an easier time running for office, wouldn't you say?

[velkyn]

I'm saying that it is really not important how you or I came to our conclusions when interpreting
the scripture at hand, what really matters is the meaning that is extracted from it. In your case it may support your claim to fallacy and absurdness, but in mine, it leads me to believe in a form of selflessness and charity, and whats wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that, if all theists got that message out of it, this supposed divinely inspired book.  But they don't. Christians use it to kill people, to harm their children, lying about science, etc.  It causes direct harm.  And you are left with the question, why does a supposed good deity allow this horribleness to happen, why can't it get its message out clearly? Why is there this vast differences between interpretation *and* a lack of any other evidence that any of the bible is true at all?

BTW, if you want to say free will, that's fine but consider, why was there constant interference by god in the Bible and how does that not affect free will and how does Romans 9, where it says God creates some people just to be destroyed, affect that too?

And I request that you answer my question, does it matter to you if your Jesus never really existed and that you really aren't saved that you have no "heaven" to go to, that you are indeed only stuck with living a charitable life here on this one and only earth?  You see, I don't believe that you are only concerned with living a selfless charitable life in that I suspect you don't really follow what Jesus said, that you should give up all you have and follow him.  

[Gimpy]

I hope my punctuation was correct. I wish not to provoke the wrath of GIMPY  :shrug

No, it was fine. And it wasn't that hard, was it? Something tells me by your continual pouting over it that my comments struck a truth nerve?

No Gimp, I just wasn't aware that it was so important.

Well, it IS important. It's VERY important, especially if you desire your posts to be easily read and comprehended.

People can often just read over typos and some grammatical errors and their brains fill in the gaps, but when you alter changes to word spacing, more specifically when you remove spacing, it causes the reader's brain to slow down and read not in clumps of words, as it is used to doing, but to have to slow down, back up and then read each word one at a time.

That process is almost imperceptible and most people aren't aware they are doing it. But it DOES subsequently affect reading comprehension because the brain can't fill in the "blanks" easier, since entire words get grouped together. Adding spaces in doesn't cause that much of a problem, but taking spacing out, which is what you do when you fail to space after commas, can inhibit communication.

That's one reason why people don't like to read large blocks of text that are in ALL CAPS, too. Because ALL CAPS changes the physical appearance of words, the brain has to slow down and read the text one word, or sometimes even one letter, at a time.

So again, thank you.

[Gimpy]

Your own reply acknowledges the danger of taking the text of the collection of myths that is the bible literally.

Which is exactly my point. There is nothing extreme in my assessment that people who take the violence, rhetoric, hatefulness and such from the bible literally show me that they have a cruel and inhumane heart.

So what does it matter if people accept the "love" parts literally, if they also accept as literal that it's A-Okay to viciously murder innocent babies in a horrible death by drowning, or by bashing their heads against rocks, because their parents were bad or of the "wrong" faith, or that it was not only okay to rape the women and children of your enemies, but that your god-being also expected it of you!

If someone accepts the entire book as literal, to me that's what they are accepting and that, to me, is a cruel and inhumane heart.

[AlexBP]

No, you have failed in providing any reason why anyone should take your word for it that such phrases as "cutting of your hand" is metaphorical.

I have asked several of my religious friends, all from different denominations, and every single one of them categorically believes it means what it says. That if you sin, and you can't keep your hand from sinning, that you cut it off.

Like I said to someone else in post 118, it's easy to post on the internet that you've got a friend, family member, co-worker, former college roommate, etc... whose opinion proves a point like this.  Obviously that sort of claim can't be verified in an online debate.  Then I pointed out that if it were actually true that a large number of Christians believe that the Bible does not employ metaphorical language in this passage or others, then surely some of those Christians would have written it in books or sermons or other sources that you could link to online and thereby prove the point.  If you're unable to provide such a link, why should I believe what you're saying here?

[AlexBP]

I am just now following along with the entirety of this conversation, and so am joining a bit late.  If this has been addressed, I do apologize.

Alex - welcome.  I look forward to talking with you.  However, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not apostles nor companions of apostles, and no gospel was written within a generation of the events they purport to record.  Biblically, the oldest gospel is Mark, written somewhere around 65-70 CE - assuming Jesus was crucified somewhere around 30 CE, that's quite a bit of time later.  John is the youngest gospel, written c. 100 CE, about sixty years after the events in question.  The earliest church documents are the letters of Paul, but even he is a secondhand witness, and he never mentions certain items that are central points in later dogma.

Anyway, the point of saying this is to correct the misapprehension that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to events.  It's simply not true.

It may or may not be true, but there's certainly nothing that proves it to be untrue.  If we date the ministry of Jesus Christ at 30-33 A.D. and the Gospel of Mark at 70 A.D., then there's no reason why it could not have been written by an eyewitness.  Now the dates cannot be nailed down firmly.  Mark may have been written later, perhaps as late as about 90 A.D.  On the other hand it may have been written much earlier too.  It would be decently accurate to say that a consensus among scholars that dates the Gospel of Mark to 60-70 A.D., and if we accept that dating that there's no reason to say it's impossible for an eyewitness to write 27-37 years after the fact.  Plenty of people today write memoirs or other firsthand accounts of events that happened in the 70's or 80's (or earlier).

So yes, it would be defensible to say that the authorship of the gospels cannot be proven, but not that it has been disproven.  Compared to other ancient writings the evidence in favor of authorship by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John is very strong.  The article below compares how scholars deal with authorship of ancient texts and shows that we frequently accept things where we've no evidence until many centuries after the fact.  Why then not accept the gospels written after a much shorter gap?
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

[Gimpy]

No, you have failed in providing any reason why anyone should take your word for it that such phrases as "cutting of your hand" is metaphorical.

I have asked several of my religious friends, all from different denominations, and every single one of them categorically believes it means what it says. That if you sin, and you can't keep your hand from sinning, that you cut it off.

Like I said to someone else in post 118, it's easy to post on the internet that you've got a friend, family member, co-worker, former college roommate, etc... whose opinion proves a point like this.  Obviously that sort of claim can't be verified in an online debate.  Then I pointed out that if it were actually true that a large number of Christians believe that the Bible does not employ metaphorical language in this passage or others, then surely some of those Christians would have written it in books or sermons or other sources that you could link to online and thereby prove the point.  If you're unable to provide such a link, why should I believe what you're saying here?

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think the argument is whether some or many or even one or thousands believe or don't believe that this passage or that passage in the collection of fairy tales that is commonly called the bible are metaphorical or literal. And certainly you don't have to believe me one way or the other if I have or do know christians who believe with all their heart that the "cut off your hand" passage is literal. That wasn't my point in mentioning it, only that there exists theists who believe that.

The conflict comes with what others have asked you repeatedly and I'm not finding where you have answered it, "how does anyone, of any christian flavor, determine which passages are to be understood as metaphors and which are to be taken literally"?

It should be an easy question to answer. There should be a consistent method to determine which are which.

You have not provided that. At all.

[protestantson]

I'm saying that it is really not important how you or I came to our conclusions when interpreting
the scripture at hand, what really matters is the meaning that is extracted from it. In your case it may support your claim to fallacy and absurdness, but in mine, it leads me to believe in a form of selflessness and charity, and whats wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that, if all theists got that message out of it, this supposed divinely inspired book.  But they don't. Christians use it to kill people, to harm their children, lying about science, etc.  It causes direct harm.  And you are left with the question, why does a supposed good deity allow this horribleness to happen, why can't it get its message out clearly? Why is there this vast differences between interpretation *and* a lack of any other evidence that any of the bible is true at all?

BTW, if you want to say free will, that's fine but consider, why was there constant interference by god in the Bible and how does that not affect free will and how does Romans 9, where it says God creates some people just to be destroyed, affect that too?

And I request that you answer my question, does it matter to you if your Jesus never really existed and that you really aren't saved that you have no "heaven" to go to, that you are indeed only stuck with living a charitable life here on this one and only earth?  You see, I don't believe that you are only concerned with living a selfless charitable life in that I suspect you don't really follow what Jesus said, that you should give up all you have and follow him.  

Site a modern source in which christians use the bible to kill people. Mine is pretty heavy, but don't think so.
The answer for your question concerning Romans 9 is clearly stated within it. You were referring to the " vessels of wrath " correct?
I'll be happy to answer your question. What you say does not matter to me at all, because it is a lie.
You cannot provide concrete proof of it. Such a statement is an insult to your intelligence.
Do you mean to tell me that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh? Assuming He didn't, how could
such an imaginary character gain so much fame and reverence? Paul the apostle had a prophecy about this
in Romans no less. He said that the knowledge and fame of Him and his name would cover the entire earth,
it is indeed evident that it came to pass. Not bad for a fairy tale huh?

[Aaron123]

Do you mean to tell me that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh? Assuming He didn't, how could
such an imaginary character gain so much fame and reverence? Paul the apostle had a prophecy about this
in Romans no less. He said that the knowledge and fame of Him and his name would cover the entire earth,
it is indeed evident that it came to pass. Not bad for a fairy tale huh?

Really, this is your argument?  Because Jesus is famous and revered, he must have been a real person?  Do you know how many fictional characters are famous and revered?  Harry Potter, Superman, Batman, Optimus Prime... the list goes on and on.

And this is without getting into all the thousands of other gods that had(and have) millions (in some cases, billions) of followers.  They all thought their gods were real, just as you think their gods were imaginary.

[protestantson]

Your own reply acknowledges the danger of taking the text of the collection of myths that is the bible literally.

Which is exactly my point. There is nothing extreme in my assessment that people who take the violence, rhetoric, hatefulness and such from the bible literally show me that they have a cruel and inhumane heart.

I think I sense a bit of hypocrisy here because minus the violence, the other two have belonged to you. Site me a modern example in which christians are violent.[/quote]
So what does it matter if people accept the "love" parts literally, if they also accept as literal that it's A-Okay to viciously murder innocent babies in a horrible death by drowning, or by bashing their heads against rocks, because their parents were bad or of the "wrong" faith, or that it was not only okay to rape the women and children of your enemies, but that your god-being also expected it of you![/quote] Is this a reference to the old testament?? If so, please refer me to the scripture.[/quote]
If someone accepts the entire book as literal, to me that's what they are accepting and that, to me, is a cruel and inhumane heart.
[/quote] If you witnessed a young child get struck by a car and one stands by and says "Damn kid shouldn't have been playing near the road", that is cruel and inhumane. To associate christianity or the belief in the
bible with these words is extreme and without proper reason.

[protestantson]

I messed up the post to you Gimpy, sorry

[protestantson]

Do you mean to tell me that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh? Assuming He didn't, how could
such an imaginary character gain so much fame and reverence? Paul the apostle had a prophecy about this
in Romans no less. He said that the knowledge and fame of Him and his name would cover the entire earth,
it is indeed evident that it came to pass. Not bad for a fairy tale huh?

Really, this is your argument?  Because Jesus is famous and revered, he must have been a real person?  Do you know how many fictional characters are famous and revered?  Harry Potter, Superman, Batman, Optimus Prime... the list goes on and on.

And this is without getting into all the thousands of other gods that had(and have) millions (in some cases, billions) of followers.  They all thought their gods were real, just as you think their gods were imaginary.

They may be known and revered with you transformer boy, but a person in China might not know who the heck your talking about. Everyone knows who Jesus is.

[Emily]

They may be known and revered with you transformer boy, but a person in China might not know who the heck your talking about. Everyone knows who Jesus is.

Except when jesus "lived" his life story was confined to a tiny section in the middle east. Seriously, this is your argument: appeal to popularity?!?

[Aaron123]

They may be known and revered with you transformer boy, but a person in China might not know who the heck your talking about. Everyone knows who Jesus is.

As Emily said; this is your arguement?  An appeal to popularity?  Can I take it then, that if everyone in the world knew who Harry Potter is, that it would mean that Harry Potter was a real person?  Same with Optimus Prime?

I'm also curious where you get off saying "EVERYONE knows who Jesus is".  Does that includes isolated tribes and other people that lives in remote regions?


Incidentally, many transformers toys(and other toylines, transforming or otherwise) are made, and have been made in China, so there's a fair chance people in China do know about Batman, Harry Potter, etc.


Just checked:

Harry Potter books have several translations in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_in_translation

There are Transformers fans in China.
http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/hasbro-news-chinas-transformers-cybertron-con/19417/

DVDS of Superman in China
http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/91927-china-get-superman-returns-dvd-2-months-early

Can buy Batman from China:
http://www.china-direct-buy.com/v/4/product_detail/7369217/Batman_Complete_Series_DVD_Boxset.html

[Anfauglir]

Really, this is your argument?  Because Jesus is famous and revered, he must have been a real person?  Do you know how many fictional characters are famous and revered?  Harry Potter, Superman, Batman, Optimus Prime... the list goes on and on.

And this is without getting into all the thousands of other gods that had(and have) millions (in some cases, billions) of followers.  They all thought their gods were real, just as you think their gods were imaginary.

They may be known and revered with you transformer boy, but a person in China might not know who the heck your talking about. Everyone knows who Jesus is.

Protestantson, did you miss the bit in bold, or deliberately ignore it because you had no answer?  Pre-CE, "everyone" in the Roman world knew about - and revered - Zeus, Apollo, et al.  I presume you are not suggesting in any way that Zeus is real? 

"Do you mean to tell me that Zeus did not come in the flesh? Assuming He didn't, how could
such an imaginary character gain so much fame and reverence?"

[Gimpy]

I think I sense a bit of hypocrisy here because minus the violence, the other two have belonged to you. Site me a modern example in which christians are violent.

Nope. The hypocrisy and much much more is all in your holy book. That you and others choose to ignore those parts also speaks to your ability to try to excuse away that nature of your own god-being as described in your own book about it.

Modern-day examples? Oh, little things, like the people who have killed doctors who perform abortions and who blow up health clinics.

There are entire feuding sects in Africa literally chopping each other up with machetes and raping each other.

Bosnia-Herzegovinia. The Serbs weren't atheists. The majority of Serbs are christian.

And then on smaller scales of hate, oh there are the white supremist organizations that use "scripture" to justify their racism and goal of "purity" cleansing.

And there are so many more, tucked away all over the world, from individual acts of atrocity to entire groups of it, justified by the Holy Rule Book^TM.

Yes, there is plenty on which to base the presumption of cruel and inhumane.

Is this a reference to the old testament?? If so, please refer me to the scripture.

Sir, there are many. It is rife with such material, and it's all been cited (not sited) on this site (not cite) before. Do a forum search. Or have you not actually read the collection of fairy tales you're trying to defend.

If you witnessed a young child get struck by a car and one stands by and says "Damn kid shouldn't have been playing near the road", that is cruel and inhumane. To associate christianity or the belief in the
bible with these words is extreme and without proper reason.

Not at all, there are numerous examples of your god-being doing just that, again, in your own holy book about it.

And have you not turned on a television or read a newspaper? The so-called "religious right" here in the United States is a prime example of that sort of mentality and "extreme" harshness and inhumane thought process.

Go to any newspaper forum on the internet and look at the comments posted on stories like health care reform or the programs designed recently to help homeowners modify their mortgages so they can stay in their homes.

A VAST majority of the most hateful and empathy bereft comments AGAINST both come from self-proclaimed christians!

Covering your eyes and ears, and saying "lalalalalala I can't hear you -- it isn't true," isn't a good way to approach reality.


EDITED TO FIX QUOTING AND ADD MATERIAL I CUT MYSELF OFF OF ACCIDENTALLY.

[monkeymind]

Site me a modern example in which christians are violent.

Do you mean.... like the ones in Uganda debating weather to give life imprisonment or the death penalty for homosexual acts (with the help of US Christians)?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34331632/ns/world_news-africa/

like the ones torturing and burning children as witches in Nigeria?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver
I left out links to videos actually showing the burning of children (Often by their parents at the direction of their pastors).

...or like the ones in Somalia that are stoning adulterers?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/somalia_stoning_horror_a000UGWmvaYikkYf7NjxKL

Or, like the ones in the US that shoot Doctors or bomb abortion clinics?
Need I provide a link?

Or, like the ones that pray for their daughter, but do not get her needed medical attention? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html

Or, how about all of these? http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harmarchive.html

[hickdive]

Site me a modern example in which christians are violent.

Do you mean....

Don't forget Rwanda;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Rwanda#1994_Genocide