DescentBB

Did you want a list?

Oh never mind, you are just splitting hairs to be cute.

No, of course I wasn't making any decisions before a certain point, but I do remember pretty clearly when I started taking control of my life.

...............

What does any of this have to do with misnamed political positions? Believe me, I was being kind when I chose not to rename “pro-choice” the way Ferno renamed “pro-life”.

vision wrote:
The entire Gospel is an endorsement of terror. It literally says you have to believe in Christ to avoid burning in a Lake of Fire for all Eternity. You cannot deny this fact no matter how hard you try. It's repulsive.

Yeah but it doesn't say it is OK to have sex with 8 year kids as long as they are not Muslim. But what the heck, Islam is way more peaceful than Christianity so you approve of it.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:
The entire Gospel is an endorsement of terror. It literally says you have to believe in Christ to avoid burning in a Lake of Fire for all Eternity. You cannot deny this fact no matter how hard you try. It's repulsive.

Yeah but it doesn't say it is OK to have sex with 8 year kids as long as they are not Muslim. But what the heck, Islam is way more peaceful than Christianity so you approve of it.

perhaps not, but there is endorsement for stoning people to death over a host of stupid things. Equivalency of sorts.

Whens the last time you heard of Christians stoning people to death. Yet we here of Muslim women being stoned to death all the time.

woodchip wrote:Whens the last time you heard of Christians stoning people to death. Yet we here of Muslim women being stoned to death all the time.

I for one am not arguing that some parts of the modern Muslim world are still stuck in the Middle Ages, culture-wise(and economically, which is part of the overall problem). The discussion was around the raw words of the 'holy' texts.

Ferno wrote:And you are asking me to find something that you have already interpreted as not being there, so doing what you ask is simply a fools' errand.... No matter how you view it, it's simply interpretation, and more analogous to philosophy than history.

Okay, I get the interpretation spin... but you're still wrong. If you read a math textbook and "interpret" it to mean that 2+2=5, I can take your "interpretation" (dare I say, Hypothesis) and compare it against the content of the textbook (conduct a test) and make a strong logical argument that your hypothesis is wrong (reach a conclusion)... and that my hypothesis that the textbook says that 2+2=4 is indeed much more appropriate. In other words... we can all apply the scientific process to all of our reading.

Now, on the subject of normative vs narrative writing... you can also apply the scientific process to to that... if you're reading a fictional work, and claim that it's normative - I can read the same work, test your hypothesis, and make a logical case for why you're wrong. Likewise, when I show you my math textbook, and tell you that it's just a narrative about how the textbook writer found 2+2 to be 4, but that was just him... you can make a logical case for why the textbook writer intended that to be normative... and that the textbook writer wants us to conclude that every time we add 2 and 2 we should say that the sum is four.

Now, on interpretation of the Bible: it's complex, because you have this big mix of normative writing, narrative writing with an attached normative lessons, and narrative writing with little normative content... but that doesn't mean it's just up to anyone's guess... that means that getting it right takes a great deal of study. Lucky for us, it's been studied for literally centuries - and those centuries of study have yielded a fairly constant set of "core" normative conclusions drawn from the Bible which receive very little serious dissent at this point. (Note: I'm not particularly arguing whether the Bible is correct or not at this point - I'm arguing that what the Bible has to say is quite well understood.) So, my challenge isn't a fool's errand because there's no mechanism by which to logically demonstrate that you're right - it's a fools errand because you're (or vision is) attempting to attribute something to the Bible which is quite demonstrably (given use of the scientific process & our logical facilities) incorrect. If you want to hold on to that opinion, know that you hold it out of ignorance (not so much at this point, since I've taken that time to point out that you're wrong) or out of your own willingness to suspend your logical facilities.

snoopy wrote:

Ferno wrote:And you are asking me to find something that you have already interpreted as not being there, so doing what you ask is simply a fools' errand.... No matter how you view it, it's simply interpretation, and more analogous to philosophy than history.

Okay, I get the interpretation spin... but you're still wrong. If you read a math textbook and "interpret" it to mean that 2+2=5, I can take your "interpretation" (dare I say, Hypothesis) and compare it against the content of the textbook (conduct a test) and make a strong logical argument that your hypothesis is wrong (reach a conclusion)... and that my hypothesis that the textbook says that 2+2=4 is indeed much more appropriate. In other words... we can all apply the scientific process to all of our reading.

nope. you can't take well known facts and twist them into supporting your side. You're still asking us to agree with you on the basis that your interpretation is right.

And that is something I can never do.

If the bible had provable, testable, and repeatable instances (like we know the location of the Ark and we found historical references to it), that's one thing. But it has no such events or instances, so all we really are relying on is interpretations and a common core opinion. You can say I'm wrong all you like, but it doesn't change the facts. I just don't do appeals to authority

snoopy wrote:Lucky for us, it's been studied for literally centuries...

I think you mean "rewritten" for centuries.

Ferno wrote:nope. you can't take well known facts and twist them into supporting your side. You're still asking us to agree with you on the basis that your interpretation is right.

And that is something I can never do.

If the bible had provable, testable, and repeatable instances (like we know the location of the Ark and we found historical references to it), that's one thing. But it has no such events or instances, so all we really are relying on is interpretations and a common core opinion. You can say I'm wrong all you like, but it doesn't change the facts. I just don't do appeals to authority

snoopy wrote: (Note: I'm not particularly arguing whether the Bible is correct or not at this point - I'm arguing that what the Bible has to say is quite well understood.)

You're ignoring my argument and choosing to fight a different one. I'm making no attempts at arguing the real-world validity of the content within the Bible (although you are right that we'd disagree over that, too.) - I'm arguing that the content of the Bible is well understood, valid or no... Furthermore, I'm arguing that what you attribute to the content of the Bible is, in fact, not there.

If you want to argue that the Bible isn't valid, then connect that argument (somehow) to how that makes the Bible support terrorism.

snoopy wrote:You're ignoring my argument and choosing to fight a different one.

*bewildered* What? no.

I'm making no attempts at arguing the real-world validity of the content within the Bible (although you are right that we'd disagree over that, too.) - I'm arguing that the content of the Bible is well understood, valid or no...[/quote]

well understood, yes. no argument there.

Furthermore, I'm arguing that what you attribute to the content of the Bible is, in fact, not there.

what did I attribute to the bible?

If you want to argue that the Bible isn't valid, then connect that argument (somehow) to how that makes the Bible support terrorism.

I never said anything about terrorism. I didn't even get anywhere close to mentioning it. All I said was there was no hard evidence to support what was written in it.

Are you sure you have the right person?

Ferno wrote:[the content of the Bible is] well understood, yes. no argument there.

Let me refer you to:

Ferno wrote:easy. one mans' interpretation of the bible is no more right than anothers. It's not like we're dealing with hard and fast facts.

Said in reference to me calling vision's assertion a straw man. Vision attributed content to the Bible, I countered that his argument came nowhere close to a legitimate representation of the content of the Bible, and you commented that the Bible is open to an extremely wide range of interpretation. Since then, I've made an argument that since the content of the Bible is well understood, we can make well reasoned arguments for at least the core messages of the Bible.

Now, I'll close the loop again: I'm back to refuting vision's assertion as a straw man, and since the content of the Bible is well understood, I'm proposing that we can indeed have a reasoned discussion about whether vision's assertion is valid or not. Since all we have at this point is an assertion, I'm challenging anyone who would like to have said discussion to make an argument for the Bible encouraging terrorism. Obviously, since the discussion is going to be over the appropriate interpretation of the content of the Bible, I expect the argument to be made on the basis of reasoned cases for why the Bible as a whole should be interpreted as supporting terrorism based on its content. (Or even, in what vision characterizes as terrorism, a works-based method to avoid eternal damnation.) Until someone makes an argument (as is ready to receive an counter argument) I'll stand by my characterization of vision's assertion as a straw man.

that's a very interesting, well thought-out and pretty rational response.

snoopy wrote:...I'm challenging anyone...

Sure, if you take the modern, ever-changing definition of terrorism you couldn't say the Bible as a whole supports terrorism. But this is mostly due to the fact the Bible doesn't say anything as a whole. It's a fragmented mish-mash of semi-related fictions cobbled together and re-written over centuries. Let's not even get into the hundreds of contradictions in the book. However, you cannot deny that God has often times instructed his followers to do things that would make ISIS look like grade school bullys. Those passages have even been used by Jewish terrorists. Of course, as scholarly as you are you know these things already.

My characterization is based on the undeniable fact that the Bible itself is a terror-inducing book. The outstanding message is that God exists, you need Jesus Christ to get into Heaven, and if you don't accept Jesus YOU WILL BURN IN A LAKE OF FIRE FOR ETERNITY.

If you don't think this is an appalling message then you haven't thought about it hard enough, or with enough empathy. It's divine terrorism.

Using fear as a tool of persuasion is not the same thing as using violence as a tool of persuasion, so as I said before, you are using terror in the wrong context.

So…also in your context, parents would be guilty of terrorism if they tell their kids they will be punished for misbehaving.

And you are guilty of terrorism as well, with all of that doom and gloom talk over climate change.

Point is….without the actual violence, its just fear.

Spidey wrote:And you are guilty of terrorism as well, with all of that doom and gloom talk over climate change.

Spidey, gloom and doom talk about something that may actually be an issue that needs addressing is not terrorism. It's an attempt to promote the survival of our species despite the fact that half of that species likes having their heads up their ass about the matter. Blowing up oil refineries and oil pipelines in an effort to stop or disrupt the use of oil would be.

By the way, how do all you people in the eastern half of the country like your exceptionally warm winter so far?

Yes tc, that was my point.

Using fear to persuade is not terrorism, but using violence is.

If even CHINA is saying that something needs to be done about the environment, then you know ★■◆● just got real.

Spidey wrote:Using fear as a tool of persuasion is not the same thing as using violence as a tool of persuasion, so as I said before, you are using terror in the wrong context.

Maybe you don't understand, so let me explain it to you. These people who believe this nonsense about God, they actually believe people are burning in Hell, right now. There is your violence, right there. If they didn't believe, there wouldn't be any fear, thus no persuasion. These people believe in garbage like "spiritual health" and have all sorts of funny stories about what the after-life involves. Of course, the smarter of us know there is no such thing as an eternal lake of fire, so I can agree that there is no actual violence because there is no actual God. Still, it doesn't stop people from using the Bible as a justification for terrorism. We all know the stories. Sure, it's not a common justification in today's Christian circles, but it's essentially the same book as it was many centuries ago (at least they believe it is).

The threat of punishment to control behavior has been used by humans since the beginning of recorded history, and probably before.

The difference here is the usage of violence without right or authority perpetrated on the innocent.

Like I said if you extend your logic then a parent that threatens a child with punishment would by your definition be a terrorist.

.....

As far as the justification for terrorism, I won’t argue with that, but then again, you can use just about anything to justify terrorism.

Find me the text in the New Testament where Jesus commands people to use violence against non believers?

Spidey wrote:The threat of punishment to control behavior has been used by humans since the beginning of recorded history, and probably before. The difference here is the usage of violence without right or authority perpetrated on the innocent. Like I said if you extend your logic then a parent that threatens a child with punishment would by your definition be a terrorist.

So, because God wants you to burn in Hell it's Ok because he has the authority? Does that make it any less horrible? You are riding the slippery slope when you compare parental punishment with the horrors of the Bible. They are not equivalent and you can't get from one to the other. It is also illegal for parents to instill terror in their children or abuse them emotionally or physically. As a civilized society we do our best to make punishments fit the crimes. I can't see how God commanding his followers to murder women, children, livestock, and then raze a town and it's crops with fire as being justifiable for any crime.

Spidey wrote:Find me the text in the New Testament where Jesus commands people to use violence against non believers?

Violence against non-believers? Are you fuking kidding me? He advocates death for believers! In Matthew 15, Jesus literally quotes God about putting to death those who don't honor their father and mother and and angrily scolds some Pharisees for attempting to circumvent this with their new interpretations of the Torah. (He then goes on to call his disciples dullards like the troll he is.)

I never got the impression god wanted anyone to go to hell.

And I asked for text proving Jesus advocated terrorism, and you post a quote in regards to crime and punishment, that pretty much proves to me you don’t really understand the difference between the two.

this has been a fascinating read, with strong exchanges. My question, in response to Spideys last post is this:
Isn't it always the perpetrators IDEA of what is a crime, and how greivous that crime is, that is used to justify what
the rest of society calls 'terrorism' as mere appropriate punishment? I'm not sure where I stand on the question, but
it just sort of jumped to mind reading your post.

If what you are asking is…do the perps think they are the ones that are in the right, then the answer is …yes.

But the problem with that rationalization is…where do they get their authority to take action? Self appointed authority I suppose.

Spidey wrote:And I asked for text proving Jesus advocated terrorism, and you post a quote in regards to crime and punishment, that pretty much proves to me you don’t really understand the difference between the two.

So first a slippery slope fallacy and now moving the goalposts? This is a discussion about the Bible advocating terrorism, which it does. This is not about what one person in the Bible said in one part of the Bible. You cannot separate the New and Old Testament to suit your purposes. The New Testament confirms the Old Testament, not contradicts it (because we all know contradiction is impossible in the Bible, right?). The life of Jesus only makes sense in the context of the Old Testament. And you know for a fact that Christians are more than happy to pull "morality" from the Old Testament when it suits them. Also, let's not forget that Jesus is literally God.

In Luke 19, Jesus talks about returning from the Kingdom of Heaven and rewarding those who believe in him. And those who don't want to be ruled by Jesus? He has this to say:

God, I mean JESUS wrote:"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

He is literally saying kill infidels. I'm not sure how much more you want, but you can try moving the goalposts again or maybe resort to some other fallacy.

I guess now I'll turn this conversation over to the Christian apologists. (You have to wonder why such a thing as Christian apologetics exists if the Bible is so wonderful and coherent?)

Spidey wrote:If what you are asking is…do the perps think they are the ones that are in the right, then the answer is …yes.

But the problem with that rationalization is…where do they get their authority to take action? Self appointed authority I suppose.

it is ALWAYS self-appointed authority. The only question is how many other people legitimize it.

Well vision, from my perspective it was you that started the slippery slope in the first place, I simply pushed the idea down that slope to its logical conclusion.

As far as moving the goalposts, I don’t know what to say, you call it one thing I call it making a further argument. Stating something as it becomes relevant is not moving anything.

My premise right from the beginning was that using fear in the context of crime and punishment is not the same thing as terrorism.

Using your original example:

Hell is a punishment for sinners, terrorists victimize the innocent, therefore turning the entire concept upside down. (not withstanding slicks idea)

That passage from Luke 19 is actually your best point of this debate, you should have used that one instead of the “Hell” thing. Problem is, I don’t have the proper context to dispute that passage, he seems to be referring to enemies. But if he means what you say, then you win the point. But he could be speaking of actual enemies that also refuse to follow him, and not all people who refuse to follow him.

vision wrote: My characterization is based on the undeniable fact that the Bible itself is a terror-inducing book. The outstanding message is that God exists, you need Jesus Christ to get into Heaven, and if you don't accept Jesus YOU WILL BURN IN A LAKE OF FIRE FOR ETERNITY.

If you don't think this is an appalling message then you haven't thought about it hard enough, or with enough empathy. It's divine terrorism.

Does Vision deny the koran is a "terror inducing book?"

There is also a huge disparity between the tiny number of Christian or Jewish "terrorists" versus the veritable hordes of muslim jihadist "warriors."

Nightshade wrote:Does Vision deny the koran is a "terror inducing book?"

Absolutely not. To me, all the texts of the Abrahamic religions are basically the same thing.

Nightshade wrote:There is also a huge disparity between the tiny number of Christian or Jewish "terrorists" versus the veritable hordes of muslim jihadist "warriors."

True, but let's not give one book or religion a pass because somehow it is less shitty. It's still a ★■◆● book/religion.

Spidey wrote:...I don’t have the proper context to dispute that passage...

And that's the problem with all of this crap. There are Islamic apologetics who say the same thing about the Koran. All these books are garbage writing from ignorant people and have no place in modern society. They don't offer anything when it comes to morality. The Greeks gave us a better moral framework centuries before the Bible. The only thing these religions offer is consolation for those who are uncomfortable with their mortality, but with the downside of sometimes violent group-ism.

The thing about the bible is that it is written in such a way that people can use it to justify pretty much anything. When people want to be violent, the bible justifies violence. When people want to be peaceful, the bible justifies peace. The bible is nothing but a tool, one which can be used for good or evil. Just like a hammer can be used to assemble or destroy.

Krom wrote:The thing about the bible is that it is written in such a way that people can use it to justify pretty much anything. When people want to be violent, the bible justifies violence. When people want to be peaceful, the bible justifies peace. The bible is nothing but a tool, one which can be used for good or evil. Just like a hammer can be used to assemble or destroy.

But we all agree they're more or less fairy tales. (At least the magical ghosts'n'magic tricks parts.)

Nightshade wrote:

Krom wrote:The thing about the bible is that it is written in such a way that people can use it to justify pretty much anything. When people want to be violent, the bible justifies violence. When people want to be peaceful, the bible justifies peace. The bible is nothing but a tool, one which can be used for good or evil. Just like a hammer can be used to assemble or destroy.

But we all agree they're more or less fairy tales. (At least the magical ghosts'n'magic tricks parts.)

Not to those true believers. They'll believe anything and defend it to the death, even if it sounds like a fairy tale to most modern rational people.

tunnelcat wrote:
Not to those true believers. They'll believe anything and defend it to the death, even if it sounds like a fairy tale to most modern rational people.

Sure- but they pose unequal threats to secular civilization.

Say western civilization were a baby... Christianity would be a yappy poodle that sometimes nips or annoys the kid...

Islam is like a rabid pitbull. It just does NOT coexist with western civilization.

and visa versa to the minds of folks living outside of 'Western Civilization'.

Krom wrote:The thing about the bible is that it is written in such a way that people can use it to justify pretty much anything. When people want to be violent, the bible justifies violence. When people want to be peaceful, the bible justifies peace. The bible is nothing but a tool, one which can be used for good or evil. Just like a hammer can be used to assemble or destroy.

That's the myth that I've been working to dispel. Your statement is akin to saying that the constitution is just a tool, and can be interpreted to support fascism, communism, or democracies - sure it can... but some of those options can be pretty easily debunked with a little bit of rational study.

vision wrote:Maybe you don't understand, so let me explain it to you. These people who believe this nonsense about God, they actually believe people are burning in Hell, right now. There is your violence, right there. If they didn't believe, there wouldn't be any fear, thus no persuasion. These people believe in garbage like "spiritual health" and have all sorts of funny stories about what the after-life involves.

I also believe that people are actually being raped and murdered in our prisons, right now - yet I'm also not using that as an argument for why the US government supports terrorism. Fear of punishment from the hands of authority is a legitimate way that we keep our societies civil. I also happen to believe that it's modelled after God's way of handling this world. If God doesn't have the authority to mete out punishment, I can see you having a case for that representing terroristic action on God's part... but it still doesn't serve as a call for us people to similarly take up our bombs to do the same. Either way, that comes to a question of God's authority to judge - the Bible makes an argument for why God does have the authority to judge (namely, He created the thing being punished) - thus within the logic of the Bible the punishment is wholly justified and appropriate.

vision wrote:Still, it doesn't stop people from using the Bible as a justification for terrorism. We all know the stories.

Just one quote in response... but one that represents a theme that runs throughout the Bible: (The quote within the text refers to Deuteronomy 32)

Romans 12:19-21 wrote:19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave iti to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

People who use God's vengeance to excuse their own are pretty clearly acting extra-Biblically.

vision wrote:So, because God wants you to burn in Hell it's Ok because he has the authority? Does that make it any less horrible? You are riding the slippery slope when you compare parental punishment with the horrors of the Bible. They are not equivalent and you can't get from one to the other. It is also illegal for parents to instill terror in their children or abuse them emotionally or physically.

One one side: You characterize hell as something that God wants... when clearly it's stated in the Bible that God doesn't want people to go there (in fact, He went there Himself so you won't have to.) Which brings me to the other side: you mix belief and unbelief. If you don't believe, and think it's all hogwash, then what does it matter what's said - as you say, there is no terror and ultimately it doesn't matter. If you do believe, then you have indeed accepted salvation, and it won't happen to you... so the only time that the punishment of Hell is really relevant is to serve as motivation for the believers to proselytize so the unbelieving doesn't suffer the fate that the believer is convinced is coming. Finally, that brings me to a beef that I hear from you which I share with you: parents using it as a tool to scare their kids into better behavior. In that context I put santa, threatening to call the cops (on a young child, not a teen), and the "God boogey man" all in the same boat: it's parents misusing a good thing to try to manipulate their children into good behavior - and in all cases I have a problem with it because it's ultimately an attempt at manipulation through deception.

vision wrote:Violence against non-believers? Are you fuking kidding me? He advocates death for believers! In Matthew 15, Jesus literally quotes God about putting to death those who don't honor their father and mother and and angrily scolds some Pharisees for attempting to circumvent this with their new interpretations of the Torah. (He then goes on to call his disciples dullards like the troll he is.)

The specific word used in Exodus can be translated curses, reviles, or dishonors... it's also in the middle of a section prescribing the death penalty for things like first degree murder, enslavement by force, and beating one's parents. Also, consider that in that time, a person's retirement was basically their children - so put all of that together and a reasonable way to interpret the Exodus passage is death penalty for putting your parents out on the street to either beg or die. In the new testament passage, the Pharisees are trying to say that it's okay to do that as long as you say that cutting them off was so you could give to the church... giving people license to leave their parents destitute on that excuse.

vision wrote:In Luke 19, Jesus talks about returning from the Kingdom of Heaven and rewarding those who believe in him. And those who don't want to be ruled by Jesus? He has this to say:

God, I mean JESUS wrote:"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

That direct quote is clearly within a story that Jesus is telling - and within that story it's said by a ruler doling out punishment to those who mounted a rebellion against his legitimate reign. You (validly) understand the story as an illustration of God's own reign over the world - but that doesn't change the context of a ruler doling out justified punishment. Again, there's really no way to validly interpret this as encouraging or even condoning the illegitimate use of force or violence - within the logic of the Bible, the action is wholly taken by a legitimate authority in a justified context.

Spin it some more!

vision wrote:Spin it some more!

You're welcome to refute my points.

Snoopy wrote:(in fact, He went there Himself so you won't have to.)

Not a fact that is supported by scripture.

John wrote:19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Luke wrote:23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Perfect execution. Resort to random Bible quotes to verify your position, which is exactly what everyone does, and is the whole reason why, as Krom says, you can use the Bible to justify anything — even terrorism. Thanks for proving my point (though you guys are so deluded you don't know you did it).

vision wrote:Perfect execution. Resort to random Bible quotes to verify your position, which is exactly what everyone does, and is the whole reason why, as Krom says, you can use the Bible to justify anything — even terrorism. Thanks for proving my point (though you guys are so deluded you don't know you did it).

This goes back to my earlier points on there being some room for literary interpretation but not nearly as much as you try to claim. Thorne and I might quibble over details of exactly how to interpret things which at left open to interpretation - but we're not going to disagree over the most relevant root of the issue: that Christ suffered physical death and complete separation from God the Father so we wouldn't have to. To give a scientific analogy that's close to my career field: scientists may spend lots of time discussing how to model urban canyon fading... but none of them disagree over that fact that it exists and it's a pain to deal with. As for Bible quotes: if we're discussing the content of the Bible, it seems to me that quoting excerpts of the content of the Bible would be quite appropriate.

You're still welcome to have your own hand at refuting my points. If you're not interested, then your argument stands defeated.

Christ did suffer physical death--the Bible says he tasted death for us all. Without that there is no salvation. The notion that he went to hell or was separated from the Father is extra-Biblical, however, and you would do well to research the subject in the scriptures thoroughly--I have heard of these errors before, and they're contradictory to the word and to the very salvation that Christ purchased. Not a light thing. Jesus committed his spirit into the Father's hands when he died (Luke 23:46). Until he died he was the pure and spotless lamb of God. Believe me, anyone who accepts that Jesus went to hell doesn't even properly understand the purpose of hell. Remember that the scripture says that God condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3).

vision wrote:Perfect execution. Resort to random Bible quotes to verify your position, which is exactly what everyone does, and is the whole reason why, as Krom says, you can use the Bible to justify anything — even terrorism. Thanks for proving my point (though you guys are so deluded you don't know you did it).

There is plenty of context behind the verses I quoted, and I was counting on Snoopy having a grasp of that context. Your point is unproven, and you look like a jackass from where I'm standing. If a person is dishonest enough they can justify anything with anything, but there are still others that know better. People have justified all kinds of terrible things using the Bible. That's not a commentary on the Bible unless it's in agreement with what's written in the Bible--if it isn't in agreement with the Bible it's a commentary on the people.