To everyone who says The Bible has been changed over the years etc.

[Forged]

I beleive that the bible was made up by the government to control the people on the world.

Funny thing is you're kinda right. One of the Rulers of Europe brought Orthodox Christianity to Europe because he thought it would give his peasents a reason to live and obey him. The Idea caught on with the Monarchs of Europe.

wrong kamikaze the money gose towards missions etc not to the church.

The Money goes to the church tax free then they use it to pay their minsters and what not, then they go to other countries to try and exploit those people too.

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by N[u]TS
wrong kamikaze the money gose towards missions etc not to the church.

only a matter of time till he comes again so yeah its your choice weather or not to accept him through your own free will.

No, a lot of it goes to the churchs and corrupt televangelists. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Binny Hinn and the others like them are all very well off. And exactly where do you think they get the money to build all those magnificent churches?

There have been idiots on street corners with "The end is near" signs since the time of Jesus. And IIRC, the Bible says that he should have come back a long time ago. I think somebody needs to buy Jesus a watch.

Yes, but of the bible, there is over thousands of copies, written by entire counsels of people, and if they ever said anything untrue they would have so many people contesting it and saying it's not true they would never be allowed to publish it. But that didn't happen.

Billions to be accurate, but whose counting.

Course it didn't happen. The Catholic Church burned anyone that dared challenge them. Do you know how many books they dropped from the Bible? Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, ect, ect. And the 4 Gospels weren't written until after 70 years after Jesus. Cause when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, the original Gospels were torched. Like trying to write a detailed account of D-Day 60 years after the fact.

[Calliope]

I figured I'd post this, in case there was anyone interested in reading about some of the contradictions or just general interpretations of the Bible.

Skeptic's Annotated Bible

As far as whether or not the New Testament is accurate - it's hard to say. I hold the same view as Kamikaze; it's been translated for so long into so many different languages, who's to say that some monk decided to play a practical joke and omit something that was in the version he was translating.

You just never know.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Calliope
Skeptic's Annotated Bible

i've never laughed so hard reading through that site
i never realized how much the bible contradicts itself or how many times facts, names and numbers are changed


i like this one
Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[Jason the Destroyer]

While I have yet to read the Skeptic's Bible, these things are all too true. It's much like the Kuran, and what Osama and his followers believe. They think that by waging holy war against the U.S. (infidels, by their definition), they will receive twenty virgins when they reach heaven. Fact, or mis-translation/interpretation? Many languages have words that have shades of meaning. Latin (Bible) and Muslim (Kuran) are two such languages. It is all too simple to make such mistakes with these types of languages. Especially into the clumsy language of English.

[up-shut]

Originally Posted by N[u]TS

wrong kamikaze the money gose towards missions etc not to the church.

does god pay the light bills in this church? or do they have 3rd world youth running on treadmills to create the energy needed. i'm lost.

[MacMan]

People don't go to war over differing interpretations of Homer's Iliad.

[_Ace]

Originally Posted by Megendo

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
For instance, Plato. If you take Philosophy in a college class, I guarantee you no one college professor will doubt a word of any copies of Plato's works.

Date of his works written: 427-347_B.C.

Date the very first copies were made: 900 A.D.

Approx. time in between: 1200 yrs

Number of copies made: 7

Now, The New Testament.

Date: 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.

copies date: 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.)

Approx. time in between: less than 100 years

number of copies made: 5600

--

And check me on this. I guarantee you I am right.

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 in copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.

Let me say you suck:
You say that 5600 copies were made in 70 years... right... show me your source
You say that bible hasn't been altered? Please, don't be that newb at history... let me explain:
First bible was written in that newb jew language whose name I don't remember... yeah Hebrew. Anyway, Greek translated it and made 5600 as you say. Then other countries translated it and made some other copies...
I challenge you to take a Greek bible, an Arameic bible, a medieval English bible, a modern English bible, a 1800's American bible, a 1900's American bible, and the actuall American bible... Now compare them and tell me I'm wrong, they say completely different things... Yeah, the layout is the same but hey TRANSLATORS HAVE TO INTERPRETATE THE THINGS THEY TRANSLATE, so don't give me shit about it being unaltered over the time when it was translated like 1000 times depending on the interests of each country...
For example, when the Roman Pope had more power than any king (1200 AD or so), the Roman Catholic Church had power over whole Europe, and they were the only "real" source for "real" Bibles... So the Pope was 100% able to change whatever the **** he wanted to change in the bible, everyone would take it as Holy God's Word...
Please, don't make me laugh again like this...

Edit: You say the Gospel of John is unaltered because they found a fragment... that's a falacy my friend.
Let's say I write a book, and after a war, the whole book is lost but a page. Then someone finds that page and writes a completely different book that contains that page... Will that book be the original one?

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by MacMan

People don't go to war over differing interpretations of Homer's Iliad.

People don't go to war over following the word of the bible.

I am not going to say the bible hasn't changed somewhat through translations, but it doesn't really matter in the case of Roman Catholocism because the Holy Spirit stops the church from making interpretation errors.

[Kuzmich]

So Tipsy please tell me what were the crusades? Were they misentepretations? Or did your God want all those people to die in a bloody war which should never have happened? Did he want all those children to be slain? What about those peasants? Did he want the knights to come to the gates of Jerusalem, enter the "holy" city and bring pillaging and rape? Or for example then Isrealites came to the promise land as the bible says did god tell them to murder every man, woman and child that already lived on that land? Or is it an interpretation.

As for the bible and it changing, of course it has, every religion changes and adopts to the times, ever since church was separated from state. Thats why right now public executions and witchhunts commited by church all through out the middle ages are no longer justified by the bible. The bible was written by men and it is read by men, interpretation changes from man to man, but in the end bible is just a book, written by an opressed society which needed to hope for better times in order to sustain itself.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Kuzmich

So Tipsy please tell me what were the crusades? Were they misentepretations? Or did your God want all those people to die in a bloody war which should never have happened? Did he want all those children to be slain? What about those peasants? Did he want the knights to come to the gates of Jerusalem, enter the "holy" city and bring pillaging and rape?

I believe it has something to do with a word called 'sin'. Do the teachings of the bible say to rape and pillage, to kill innocent people, and to slay children? It should be fairly obvious that the bible doesn't. So, if you go back to my original statement, people don't go to war when they follow the word of the bible. Just in case this isn't clear though, you might bring up the point to blame it on sons and daughters of the church. One of these people being the pope who supported the crusades. On this I have heard many arguments such as the pope never actually intended that to happen and had meant for it to be a just war as probably the most extreme on the spectrum. But regardless of whether that is valid or not, everyone, with the exception of a select group such as Jesus Christ, are sinners. This includes the pope. He can be consumed by temptation just as much as we can, his infallibility does not reach into this part of his life. So the answer is no, it is not misinterpretation for the most part, it is the blatant ignoring of the word of God.

Or for example then Isrealites came to the promise land as the bible says did god tell them to murder every man, woman and child that already lived on that land? Or is it an interpretation.

This is different due to it being in the Old Testament. I’ll explain the entire concept so that it is more easily understood. First off, God is unchanging regardless of whatever you may think from how it seems he has changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Every time God ordered the Israelites to war it was because they either were had attacked Israel or because of their wickedness. For the specific example you are referring to I believe it was the second. Why this example is so different from the other is because of what the Old Testament and New Testament portray of God. The Old Testament is of God’s justice, while the New Testament is of his mercy. The big question here is why did it change from justice to mercy?

Ancient cultures were relatively simple in their religious knowledge, mostly focusing around violence and superstition. This required a very clear and forceful message because of this. Any attempt to appeal to their softer side would have been a complete waste because without seeing the harshness of justice there would be no background to which establish mercy. On top of this, it God over the ages has shown to be taking a longer route, training the Israelites to be the people of his revelation and salvation. Because of this, he could not just ignore their problems, they were too important to his plan.

The harshness of the justice is what changed when Jesus fulfilled the old laws. He replaced it with his new law and opened the door to God’s mercy. God merely interacts with people according to the circumstances. Hopefully this explains it well enough.

The bible was written by men and it is read by men, interpretation changes from man to man,

Good thing God interprets the bible for the Roman Catholic Church.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Good thing God interprets the bible for the Roman Catholic Church.

Okay, I usually don't post much in the AS, but I read this and actually chuckled. I, myself, am a Catholic and don't even believe that. Its silly to think so.

[Kuzmich]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

I believe it has something to do with a word called 'sin'. Do the teachings of the bible say to rape and pillage, to kill innocent people, and to slay children? It should be fairly obvious that the bible doesn't. So, if you go back to my original statement, people don't go to war when they follow the word of the bible. Just in case this isn't clear though, you might bring up the point to blame it on sons and daughters of the church. One of these people being the pope who supported the crusades. On this I have heard many arguments such as the pope never actually intended that to happen and had meant for it to be a just war as probably the most extreme on the spectrum. But regardless of whether that is valid or not, everyone, with the exception of a select group such as Jesus Christ, are sinners. This includes the pope. He can be consumed by temptation just as much as we can, his infallibility does not reach into this part of his life. So the answer is no, it is not misinterpretation for the most part, it is the blatant ignoring of the word of God.

Actually it was the pope who gave the fiery speech to the peasants of the first crusade to go kill the sinners (Muslims) and he probably justified it with a bible. He wanted that to happen, same as he wanted Church to maintain power and terrorize people, please do not forget the executions. It had nothing to do with ignoring a word of god, for a simple reason that where is no god, only a book and people who are brainwashed into trusting it no matter how strong the case against that book is they will always find a loophole no matter how hypocretical it is.

Ancient cultures were relatively simple in their religious knowledge, mostly focusing around violence and superstition. This required a very clear and forceful message because of this. Any attempt to appeal to their softer side would have been a complete waste because without seeing the harshness of justice there would be no background to which establish mercy. On top of this, it God over the ages has shown to be taking a longer route, training the Israelites to be the people of his revelation and salvation. Because of this, he could not just ignore their problems, they were too important to his plan.

But the thing is if you claim that god is all merciful that means he is not bloodthirsty, and according to the events in the bible, your god is bloodthirsty. Wiping out a civilization just because they don't believe in your diety is not justice, its warmongering.

The harshness of the justice is what changed when Jesus fulfilled the old laws. He replaced it with his new law and opened the door to God’s mercy. God merely interacts with people according to the circumstances. Hopefully this explains it well enough.

Sure, right, you explained it well enough for me to toss it away as non-logical.

Good thing God interprets the bible for the Roman Catholic Church.

No, he doesn't. However i would like you to give some proof.

[Tipsy]

Actually it was the pope who gave the fiery speech to the peasants of the first crusade to go kill the sinners (Muslims) and he probably justified it with a bible. He wanted that to happen, same as he wanted Church to maintain power and terrorize people, please do not forget the executions. It had nothing to do with ignoring a word of god, for a simple reason that where is no god, only a book and people who are brainwashed into trusting it no matter how strong the case against that book is they will always find a loophole no matter how hypocretical it is

I was referring to the pillaging, raping, slaughter of innocents, etc when I was talking about the argument (which I have not looked into nor know the validity of) of what the pope may or may not have intended. The fact that he supported the crusade it not disputed, especially since I have seen sources where the pope said ‘God commands it’ when referring to the crusades.

As to the actually point, using the bible for conquest and political gain sounds slightly like a misuse to me as well. Most of those people most likely couldn’t read the language the bible was in, let alone have a copy of it and would probably have been easily manipulated by the greed for political power and conquest by the pope of that time. It should be completely obvious that the pope telling anyone, let alone the peasants, that God commands they fight in his name. After all, it was Jesus who said, “in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” (John 16:2-3) Can it be much clearer than Jesus saying people that kill in his name do not know him or his father?

Just simply answer on this point, how does doing the exact opposite of the message of the bible somehow not following the word of God without the excuse of ‘there is no God’?

But the thing is if you claim that god is all merciful that means he is not bloodthirsty, and according to the events in the bible, your god is bloodthirsty. Wiping out a civilization just because they don't believe in your diety is not justice, its warmongering.

Sure, right, you explained it well enough for me to toss it away as non-logical.

I’m assuming I did a terrible job explaining it then. Sorry bout that. I’ll try again in more to the point sentences. There was no mercy in the Old Testament there was only justice. Mercy did not come until Jesus Christ came and fulfilled the old laws and replaced them with the new and merciful ones. As to explain why it is justice, go under the assumption that there is one true God, the God of Abraham. It says in the bible that God wiped out people/commanded people to be wiped out not because of the virtue of the Israelites, but because of the evil of the other people being referred to. You are breaking God’s Law when you do not worship the God of Abraham. When you get a just punishment for breaking the law, it is justice. Though not believing was most likely not their only sin. After all, he drove them out “not because of your (Hebrews) righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” (Deu 9:5)

Giving a just punishment for breaking the law is justice. And who better to decide the just punishment other than God himself.

No, he doesn't. However i would like you to give some proof.

The magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, which removes even the possibility of error when interpreting the bible. Though the people of the magisterium are the interpreters, God is the ultimate interpreter. It is similar to the bible. It was written by various men, yet the ultimate author is God. Though there is a difference between divine inspiration and this, it is an example that should get across the point. Simply put, God interprets the bible for the Roman Catholic Church.

You use the reason God does not exist and I use the reason he does. We are going to have to go on the assumption, at least for the purposes of debating, that he does exist because if he doesn’t then nothing I say means anything.

[Forged]

There was no mercy

And there still is no mercy....

This is why people hate and despise your god.

[Kuzmich]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

As to the actually point, using the bible for conquest and political gain sounds slightly like a misuse to me as well.

In history of human civilization religions were always used for political gain and gaining power, as well as justifying conquest. If you think about it a little bit then you will understand that any religion's true purpose is to justify the existance of a hierarchy which opresses a majority while supporting the minority.

Most of those people most likely couldn’t read the language the bible was in, let alone have a copy of it and would probably have been easily manipulated by the greed for political power and conquest by the pope of that time.

Knights of the crusades new exactly what they were doing, they were taught to read and write in many languages from their birth, they wanted land and power and religion was their tool, i am actually turning onto the path of thinking that purhapse religion was originally created for justification.

It should be completely obvious that the pope telling anyone, let alone the peasants, that God commands they fight in his name. After all, it was Jesus who said, “in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” (John 16:2-3) Can it be much clearer than Jesus saying people that kill in his name do not know him or his father?

That doesn't really explain anything, exept that whoever made that up was able to see repition of history, which is not a very difficult thing to do, especially for someone with enough brainpower to write the bible.

Just simply answer on this point, how does doing the exact opposite of the message of the bible somehow not following the word of God without the excuse of ‘there is no God’?

Bible is just a tool in hands of the church and whoever else wants to use it to justify something, you keep claiming that Catholic religion is somehow different from any other religion, but its not, its simply a parasitical hierarchy trying to fool the common man into thinking that he needs that hierarchy, through the use of "sacred" texts and religious artifacts. Egyptians did it, Slavs did it, Summaritans did it and Christians did it to, they are still doing it exept now their hierarchy does not maintain the amount of influence it used to because of the separation of church and state. Notice how humanity began to flurish only then Church's grip was loosened and Reinessance began.

There was no mercy in the Old Testament there was only justice. Mercy did not come until Jesus Christ came and fulfilled the old laws and replaced them with the new and merciful ones. As to explain why it is justice, go under the assumption that there is one true God, the God of Abraham. It says in the bible that God wiped out people/commanded people to be wiped out not because of the virtue of the Israelites, but because of the evil of the other people being referred to. You are breaking God’s Law when you do not worship the God of Abraham. When you get a just punishment for breaking the law, it is justice. Though not believing was most likely not their only sin. After all, he drove them out “not because of your (Hebrews) righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” (Deu 9:5)
Giving a just punishment for breaking the law is justice. And who better to decide the just punishment other than God himself.

I now understand where you coming from, but simply don't agree with you because i do not share your faith, and faith is something that can not be debated. Exept there is one thing that bothers me, how can a whole nation of men be evil? It can't its almost never white or black its mostly grey, yet your God claims that all people in those lands were evil? That is not logical and not credible, plus seems a lot like an excuse for a Hebrew conquest and massacre of innocent people just because they were weaker and Hebrews needed land.

The magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, which removes even the possibility of error when interpreting the bible. Though the people of the magisterium are the interpreters, God is the ultimate interpreter. It is similar to the bible. It was written by various men, yet the ultimate author is God. Though there is a difference between divine inspiration and this, it is an example that should get across the point. Simply put, God interprets the bible for the Roman Catholic Church.

That is not proof, that is a statement.

You use the reason God does not exist and I use the reason he does. We are going to have to go on the assumption, at least for the purposes of debating, that he does exist because if he doesn’t then nothing I say means anything.

And if he does then nothing i say has meaning, lets just go on debating like this and see where it takes us.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Kuzmich

Knights of the crusades new exactly what they were doing, they were taught to read and write in many languages from their birth, they wanted land and power and religion was their tool, i am actually turning onto the path of thinking that purhapse religion was originally created for justification.

The well educated kings, knights, etc could have known what they were doing was wrong according to the bible, but many of the people, especially the less educated peasants, probably would not have. As you put it, they used it as a justification to do the exact opposite of the message of the bible. The people weren’t exactly following the message of the bible by raping, pillaging, slaughtering, etc? If I remember it correctly, the crusade was supposed to be a sort of a pilgrimage. The reasoning was hey were supposed to have been sent to face extreme hardships to save lives of “their neighbors oppressed by foreign conquerors.” Salvation, the overall goal of people undertaking the crusades for an actual religious purpose, could only have been achieved through “self-sacrifice and right intentions, not by violence, which the Church saw only as a necessary precursor to turning back Muslim conquests.” Not only was the action of the raping, pillaging, slaughtering of innocents, etc against the bible, it undermined anything that would help in the salvation of the people who undertook in these activates.

That doesn't really explain anything, exept that whoever made that up was able to see repition of history, which is not a very difficult thing to do, especially for someone with enough brainpower to write the bible.

That quote was just Jesus warning people in a synagogue about how to remember what he had said when people kill in his name. Looks like Jesus was against fighting in his name.

Originally Posted by Kuzmich

In history of human civilization religions were always used for political gain and gaining power, as well as justifying conquest. If you think about it a little bit then you will understand that any religion's true purpose is to justify the existance of a hierarchy which opresses a majority while supporting the minority…

Bible is just a tool in hands of the church and whoever else wants to use it to justify something, you keep claiming that Catholic religion is somehow different from any other religion, but its not, its simply a parasitical hierarchy trying to fool the common man into thinking that he needs that hierarchy, through the use of "sacred" texts and religious artifacts. Egyptians did it, Slavs did it, Summaritans did it and Christians did it to, they are still doing it exept now their hierarchy does not maintain the amount of influence it used to because of the separation of church and state. Notice how humanity began to flurish only then Church's grip was loosened and Reinessance began.

I am not claiming that Catholicism is different from any other religion (other than the obvious differences in structure and teaching and my belief in that it is the right religion). Many religions get completely misused terribly such as how Islam, one of the most peaceful religions in the world, is being misused today. I also don’t see how the bible can be used to justify something is specifically says is wrong and even has Jesus, who in the Catholicism is no less than God himself, warns us against doing. All I am saying is that if the bible was followed, then all of these holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, etc, never would have happened.

Originally Posted by Kuzmich

It can't its almost never white or black its mostly grey, yet your God claims that all people in those lands were evil? That is not logical and not credible, plus seems a lot like an excuse for a Hebrew conquest and massacre of innocent people just because they were weaker and Hebrews needed land.

The key there is the word ‘innocent’. From both the bible and historical sources, some of the many Canaanite religious practices included “homosexuality, incest, cultic prostitution (both male and female), bestiality, and child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire).” To the list in the last sentence is covered in the bible by lines such as, “You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates.” (Deu 12:31) A big one there would be the child sacrifices which was actually a rarity amongst cultures. They did it from everything to get their group’s god to help them in battle or everyday things such as at the foundation of a building to ask for their group’s god to help the foundation become strong.

The other attributes of the Canaanites of that time such as them distinctly having a culture revolving around war. They not only fought on international scales but also internally.

Other than the people not being the greatest culture around, they had quite a lot of God’s patience and second chances, somewhere around 400 years of it. Abraham had many close relationships with Canaanites and some other big Old Testament figured before the exodus had even married them. There are even places in the book of genesis where Abraham had fought side by side with them where they had praised his God: Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." (Gen 14:18) They had even seen his judgment before on Sodom. During this 400 years of patience when the Israelites were in Egypt, the Canaanites would have had constant interaction with both the people of Egypt which much of which went through Goshen (where the Israelites were at) and the Canaanites also having the descendants of Abraham living amongst them.

All you have to do is look at both the archeological evidence or even their literature to see they are considered a uniquely destructive civilization in both foreign and domestic affairs.

Then in the bible there were restrictions put on what they were to do, specifically pointing out it was not an unrestrained war of lust or greed of goods. To give a quick example, they were not allowed to attack the descendants of Lot (in Moab).

Off of the people not being anywhere close to innocent as a civilization, you must look closer into the text. There are a great number of words used to describe what the Israelites are suppose to do (this following list is borrowed):

1. "wipe them out" (e.g. Ex 23.23)
2. "throw them into confusion" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
3. "make them turn their backs and run" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
4. "drive them out of your way" (e.g. Ex 23.28)
5. "struck down" (e.g. Ps 135.10)
6. "dispossessed" (e.g. Num 21.32)
7. "drive out" (e.g. Num 33.52)
8. "thrust out" (e.g. Deut 6.19)
9. "destroy them" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
10. "subdue them before you" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
11. "annihilate" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
12. "delivered them over to you" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
13. "defeated them" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
14. "perish" (e.g. Deut 7.20)
15. "give kings into your hands" (e.g. Deut 7.24)
16. "wipe out their names from under heaven" (e.g. Deut 7.24)

It seems even contradictory that both the phrases ‘annihilate’ and ‘drive them out’ are even used together. The dispossession words such as ‘drive them out’ are used 33 times and out number the destruction words such as ‘annihilate’ which is used 11 times in a 3:1 ratio. It was the nation that was meant to be destroyed as the individual people were to be kicked out.
The punishment, which would be considered just if this God truly does exist in the way he is said to, was to destroy the culture and its’ messengers. The word nation is even used in the passages more than the word people. They even had forty years of wandering to pack up and move, which at that time was a fact of life, which they could prepare for in a number of days.
So to get this simply, here is what happened. The Israelites were told to drive the Canaanites out of the land. The Canaanites who didn’t leave as they were told to were killed. Their punishment was migration, not extermination. It all fits in with:

Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. 'For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. 'For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. (Leviticus 18:24-29)

You can even see how God is holding the Israelites to the exact same standards as he did the Canaanites through the verses in the quoted above.

Originally Posted by Kuzmich

That is not proof, that is a statement.

This is one of the many ethereal elements of Catholicism that can’t be proven. I could show why it works through religious texts, but in your mind I think you would consider them all to be false and written by humans, so showing them probably isn't necessary.

Originally Posted by Forged

And there still is no mercy....

This is why people hate and despise your god.

Well actually there is mercy ever since Jesus came. Just to give one example, God will allow our sins to be forgiven and not receive the just punishment they deserve if we undergo the sacrament of reconciliation.

Forgive me if this post isn’t the best written one, its’ late and I’m tired.

[Kuzmich]

Tipsy, i understand that you can interpret bible in many different ways so no matter what i tell you, you will find a way to interpret the bible that prooves your point to you.

However, you should also understand my point. I am not talking about existance of God, or legibility of your religion, what i am talking about is the purpose of ALL religions, true or not, to support a hierarchal state like the church and to justify war and conquest. Christians were not the first to do that and most certainly not the last.

Religion to me is simply wise, charismatic men exploiting less educated and desperate men by playing on their eagerness to have hope. I can not battle you by throwing of bible verses i have never seriously studed the bible, however it is not my point. I am not trying to disproove the existance of God right now, i am simply trying to proove to you my way of seeing the reasoning behind religion. Do you have any response to the point i raised about world's religions? Please go past saying that Catholics were ignoring the word of God during the crusades, i do not deny that, tell me what you think about my ideas about how religion came to be, by viewing the development of Christianity.

[Forged]

Well actually there is mercy ever since Jesus came.

Worship an intangible object without asking for a shred of proof or burn in hell. Sounds mighty merciful to me.

[Firebat]

omg the whole new testament is total racist selfish bs

the old testament is the true thing. Allthough most of it is made up, it gives us true moral teachings. I believe that the old testament was written by a group of old jewish men that wanted to make their people behave correctly, so they came up with the teachings of the bible and pretended its true.

the new testament is all about jesus....and jesus, jesus....and jesus....