“i am a christian and the last one you showed isn’t adviserable for 4 year old kids!!!! it is sex and they dont need to know about that until they are old enough!”

Candi,if you’re a Christian, you may want to ask yourself why other Christians give the Bible to children, then. Since these stories of rape, incest, murder, and pilage are in the Bible, perhaps you should start a campagn to keep the Bible out of the hands of children.

What do you think?

This is demonstrably false. One of the strictest codes of ethical conduct in the world is that propounded by Jainism: it more or less subsumes every other code, including Christianity. The most orthodox Jains believe that even giving pain to an ant is evil. Now here are two more points:

1)Jainism predates Christianity by at least 400 years.

2)You may find it contradictory, but Jainism is an “atheistic religion”: The most important teacher they revere explicitly rejected the existence of any deities.

In light of this, the notion that a well defined sense of evil requires a notion of Christianity, or even a god is demonstrably false.

And of course, Jainism is not the only example. Several sects of what in the west is called Hinduism, Buddhism, and the teachings of the Greek and Chinese philosophers, for example, all comfortably predate Christianity and have codes of ethics that subsume those of Christianity. All the evidence suggests that by and large, a notion of evil and good is naturally built into humans, and that is why most reasonably moderate religions end up with very similar notions of good and evil.

What I found was nothing like what is claimed here. This is like some tabloid story twisting the words and adding false ones to sell more pieces of paper.

H Bekker,

I too looked up the passages and I found the stories to be almost entirely right on. I even tried several different Bible versions.

It’s too bad you don’t provide at least a few examples. I’d be really interested to see where you think the passages have been “twisted”. As far as I can see, although it’s a literalist interpretation, it’s spot on. After all, the author does claim to be criticizing the literalist perspective.

I vaguely recalled these passages so I had to go and look them up again. What I found was nothing like what is claimed here. This is like some tabloid story twisting the words and adding false ones to sell more pieces of paper. Some questions might still be raised however if you where to read the King James version of this and it would take a more knowledgeable person than I to answer them. (I know of such a person…)

I know the newer translations to be tampered with to no end. While god forbids it and will surely punish those who did the bible also states that it will however happen. Gospel book stores are filled with self help books and new versions of the bible that chops and changes at their whim. Many could still do some good but remain severely blunted instruments. Some are subtly changed just enough to have catastrophic effects in the bigger picture. Others have nothing to do with the god it claims to speak of. Some are translated from scriptures that where found in the equivalent of a rubbish bin on an archaeological dig. Scriptures that don’t stand up to those found earlier and yet now despite its questionable origins are used for these new translations. So do be careful what book you use to bash us with.

If any of you are serious about finding answers to the questions you have or would like to actually know what you are talking about rather than quoting a bunch of fools and taking pot shots at people. I refer you to Professor Walter Veith. This is a man that really could be called a Christian and I would love to see anyone try and truthfully criticize a proper man of worth. I have seen nothing that truthfully shoots him down so far. He is a scientist he speaks your language. He does not resort to the dribble that others do and neither does he dodge the big questions. He has facts, raw and hard. He is an academic and the type all of you deserved when you first asked your questions.

Even if you are tired of religion which would be understandable, I recommend you go and see what this man has to say about the things we eat. It has nothing to do with religion and will still knock your socks off.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/speakers-WalterVeith1.html

Evil is any lack of conformity, in heart or thought or act, to God’s law.

So killing women, as long as they aren’t virgins, AND their unborn child, isn’t evil. That part I don’t need, but this getting to keep all the virgin girls I will make sure to mark so that the next time I’m near a middle school…

1) There’s nothing in the gospel of Christ that demands or compels me to accept these stories literally or at all, for that matter, even as an illustration of God’s character.

2)I read some of these stories, those relating to David in particular, as illustrations of our free will and the consequences of our actions, rather than some teaching on God.

3) To enter into a critique of God’s actions, we would need to define justice and morality and whether a higher being should be held to man’s standard of morality.

4) I find it curious that atheism would object to such definitive acts of God – if you’re going to take them as such – such as portrayed in Illustrated Stories. I don’t think Nietzche would condone such whining. Isn’t the meekness of Christ a better target?