Very well said Snake.

Here's proof that you can disagree with what someone else says and still make your point without having to resort to bashing or name calling.

Your reply to those who made fun of, generalized and bashed the Christian religion is a mature one! I applaud you for not stooping down to a level of resorting to name calling and personal attacks.

Great job Snake.


Don Cardi

Thanks, D.C.! After all, we're not ALL "narrow-minded" and "hate-mongers"!

"Ronnie, I don't see how you can say His message was "humanistic." If evolution, the big bang, etc., is true, then we should have no sense of morals, right & wrong, law, etc. Jesus' message transcends mankind. Read Isaiah 40 sometime if you think God's thinking is somehow the same as ours."

Ahh, but you would agree that we all have morals anyway....right? Besides, if you believe it in faith, fine. No problems. Thing is, do you believe it, or do you accept it as fact? Snake, I think you're the good kind.

"You cannot anymore lump ALL believers..."

Who says I did? Besides, I was just bashing many of the retards among the religion that are quite embarrasing to the rest of us. I never generalize EVERYONE, just the assholes that we have to deal with. Besides, for every society in history, at best there are 10% of the population that make the other 90% look quite awful. Wouldn't you agree?

"there's no reason I should be viewed as some idiot nut case who bombs abortion clinics. Fair enough?"

Whoa whoa....who should I viewed you as one Snake? I know you take my post personally, but damn. I never thought of you has peanutty, you know?

Besides, its one thing to take a faith or philosiphy seriously. Why should I have a problem with that? Unless I call you a nutjob Snake, don't ever assume when I objectively criticize religion that I think you're a bomber or whatever. Its like if someone was criticizing American society, but then was attacked as being Anti-American. Really Snake, why you think I had anything against you personally?

"But I just think it's unfair to paint a portrait of Christians without taking into account that not all believers are like that."

Again, unlike many elitist intellectuals, I don't think all are like you think I do. Many are, but not all. If I thought everyone of a religion or philosiphy were evil, then I would be of the Nazi mindset...as in "Natural Evil", which is total bullshit.

Now as for quoting and interpreting or taking the text for what it is, I actually don't take the Holy Bible as the Word of God.

Now before anyone gets angry and accuses me of mocking religion or whatever nonsense, consider this.

Man as a species is a corrupt creature. Fact is, if God told mankind about morals, what to do and not to do, etc....then that original document that detailed the original message was probably, and assumingly, altered over time by different religious/political/cultural leaders to fit their social situations. In fact, Snake would know that many books of the New Testament was based on now-lost source materials written earlier.

In other words, that original "testament" in contact between man and God has now been unfortunately lost, and only its traces can be found in religions based on these ideals, like the original/earlier Christian texts. Consider that many scholars believe that the almost-extinct Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism, the earliest known monotheistic religion in history, helped influence many philosophical ideals in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from the idea of a future armaggedon battle between Good and Evil, of which Good will triumph, to of course the idea of one mighty Lord God, to even the concept of....Angels.

Again Snake.....unless I actually post that I think you're a damn lunatic, don't ever assume that I think of you as one. Okay?

Sorry, Ronnie. Of COURSE I don't take it personally. I suppose it's just that I hear the diatribe from so many for so long (from lesser thinkers than you, bro.), that I just get a feeling that when someone from the left hears "Christian," they immediately assume that believer is a narrow-minded, Bible-thumping looney tune who condemns others. Apologies for my misunderstanding.

Personally, I think it's cool that you and I can vehemently disagree on this matter, yet still retain some respect towards the other. I think that's a testimony for both of us. No, I'm no paragon of virtue with all this integrity and what-not. But, believe me, I'm a lot different now than "back in th' day," and would've been anything but civil about anything. Maybe it's 'cause we're both Tennesseans?!

Anyway, no harm, no foul, dude. I disagree with you on this, but I hope we'll still be cool. There are plenty of your posts I dig (especially your reviews), and I can tell you're a notch above. Again, sorry for my misunderstanding you.

And yeah, you're right about the originals (called the "autographs"). However, what we do have is largely what was penned (I believe), and the parts that differ (from manuscript to manuscript) are, for the most part, of little or no consequence. Most importantly, man has enough of God's revelation within the Word for redemption, and really that's all that matters.