Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Homophobia” literally means “fear of homosexuality/homosexuals”.

I don’t know a single person who fears them, or their lifestyle.

But the Bible is quite clear that it is a Sin. All peoples are deserving of love and are able to receive the mercy of God if they seek it. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sinners.

Homosexuals are sinners. But I don’t know anyone who fears them.

See the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that being homosexual and loving another adult of the sane sex is a sin.

Lust is a sin, regardless of the sex of the subject of the attraction. Sex between men, between women, or between people and animals, are all explicitly defined as sin in the Book of Leviticus.

This really isn’t subject to argument or interpretation.

You can choose to agree or not, but the text itself is perfectly unambiguous.

So then just as "sinful" as sex between men and women.

Outside of marriage, yes. Different by degree perhaps, but both are sin.

Did you think I would argue about that? Wow. You really don’t understand me then.

Anonymous wrote:Too bad this thread went off the rails. It actually started as a good faith discussion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

The bible is loaded with scientific errors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

The bible is loaded with historical errors: https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817

The bible is loaded with internal contradictions: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

In addition to being loaded with immoral stuff about slavery, the rights of women, incest, rape, and many other things we have covered here many times. Happy to cite again if you need.

So there's a whole bunch of evidence your post is incorrect.

Project 2024 if installed makes your post absurd.

There will be no more "freedom of religion" ever again in the US.

Christian Nationalism does not mean Catholics will be able to still practice or Jews or Muslims or Baptists or Church of Satan get it!

Republicans are idiots.

This link doesn’t identify the author of the page. It isn’t annotated. There are no sources, footnotes, links, or citations.

Nothing at your link can be verified. None of the information could even be submitted as a paper at your local community college for credit in a college course because the professor would need the sources annotated and the information credited to the people who verified the information.

Your professor might give you a chance to add what was necessary so they could grade your paper but that is doubtful because by the time you are in college they expect you to know that information and to do what was expected independently.

The professor would already have give you a set of instructions about annotation and crediting sources and you would have failed to do those things.

I'll do the homework for you, as you ask. Tell me specifically which points you disagree with.

The author should have identified their sources and provided the exact place to find the information. That is standard across all scholarship.

How about you identify the author?

Each point needs a source, annotated and detailed in the footnotes.

You can provide that, as the author (who is anonymous and unknown) did not.

Every work of scholarship must have ab identified author and list their education, degrees, etc.

Since you won't list the points you disagree with? You won't accept that I will provide the citations?

Why not?

I would like to know the author of this link and where they found their information?

You can provide it here, no one is stopping you from providing it. Please proceed.

The first post, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors, has citations for every single claim. It even contains mathmatical proof therein.

The second one https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817 as an example:

One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#:~:text=Theudas%20(%2F%CB%88%CE%B8ju%CB%90d,in%20a%20short%2Dlived%20revolt.

Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus good enough a source for you? Unless you think Josephus was a forgery, which is fine with me, but opens a lot of other discussions.

Maybe these are better historical inaccuracy links for you:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
https://biblefails.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/scientific-and-historical-inaccuracies-in-the-bible/

I have many more if you need them.

The third one: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ is self citing as it is simply textual criticism of a single book.

There you go!

So you don’t know the author of the page?

Which page you are talking about? I have listed multiple. What issue do you take with what has been cited? You wanted citations, you got them.

So until you provide equally cited contradictions, you can't even dispute, let alone settle, the points made, and they will stand.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Don't you wonder what shrimp tastes like? I am certain you have never eaten it, since it is explicitly forbidden, just like gay sex.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Why do you care what I do?

Do you think other people must live according to your rules?

This is perhaps the most ironic post in the history of DCUM.

PP, look at the title of the thread. THIS thread.

If people weren't trying to make other people live according to their religion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's YOU that wants what you claim is unacceptable.

Nobody makes you believe their religion.

America has freedom that is unique regarding religion; we can choose to be religious or not religious. We don’t have an official state religion. We can believe whatever we want. Each person chooses what they want to believe. It’s a founding principle.

How are you forced to live according to biblical standards?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

I don’t take any advice from drug addicted comedians.

Carlin didn’t believe in God, but believed God sent people to hell?

A God that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything, much less send humans to hell.

It's not advice, it's a joke. Showing the ridiculousness and moral repulsiveness of your claim that god is sending people to hell.

You are the one making that claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

What has possibly convinced you that everyone must respond to you in a way you think is acceptable? And that you qualify every interaction as a attack or philosophical argument is just weird.

Do you see the irony in your post? Of course people can respond however they like. As can I.

You're still a horrible person for wishing people to suffer for eternity simply because they have different beliefs than you. Don't you see that? Don't you ever question that position?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Homophobia” literally means “fear of homosexuality/homosexuals”.

I don’t know a single person who fears them, or their lifestyle.

But the Bible is quite clear that it is a Sin. All peoples are deserving of love and are able to receive the mercy of God if they seek it. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sinners.

Homosexuals are sinners. But I don’t know anyone who fears them.

See the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that being homosexual and loving another adult of the sane sex is a sin.

Lust is a sin, regardless of the sex of the subject of the attraction. Sex between men, between women, or between people and animals, are all explicitly defined as sin in the Book of Leviticus.

This really isn’t subject to argument or interpretation.

You can choose to agree or not, but the text itself is perfectly unambiguous.

So then just as "sinful" as sex between men and women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

I don’t take any advice from drug addicted comedians.

Carlin didn’t believe in God, but believed God sent people to hell?

A God that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything, much less send humans to hell.

It's not advice, it's a joke. Showing the ridiculousness and moral repulsiveness of your claim that god is sending people to hell.

You are the one making that claim.

You haven’t learned your lesson regarding authorship and the necessary verification of facts. I can’t help you if you choose to continue to ignore the importance of doing so. You will have to continue on in willful ignorance.

This is a very dishonest post by you. In fact it is a lie. Many citations were provided earlier in this thread and you haven't provided a refutation to a single one.

You are dishonest. You wish people who don't believe as you to suffer for eternity. You are a bad person.

Also: jokes are funny sometimes, but aren’t to be taken seriously.

More freaking irony breaking the iron-o-meter.

More than one person is responding to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

I don’t take any advice from drug addicted comedians.

Carlin didn’t believe in God, but believed God sent people to hell?

A God that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything, much less send humans to hell.

It's not advice, it's a joke. Showing the ridiculousness and moral repulsiveness of your claim that god is sending people to hell.

You are the one making that claim.

You haven’t learned your lesson regarding authorship and the necessary verification of facts. I can’t help you if you choose to continue to ignore the importance of doing so. You will have to continue on in willful ignorance.

This is a very dishonest post by you. In fact it is a lie. Many citations were provided earlier in this thread and you haven't provided a refutation to a single one.

You are dishonest. You wish people who don't believe as you to suffer for eternity. You are a bad person.

Also: jokes are funny sometimes, but aren’t to be taken seriously.

More freaking irony breaking the iron-o-meter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

I don’t take any advice from drug addicted comedians.

Carlin didn’t believe in God, but believed God sent people to hell?

A God that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything, much less send humans to hell.

It's not advice, it's a joke. Showing the ridiculousness and moral repulsiveness of your claim that god is sending people to hell.

You are the one making that claim.

You haven’t learned your lesson regarding authorship and the necessary verification of facts. I can’t help you if you choose to continue to ignore the importance of doing so. You will have to continue on in willful ignorance.

Also: jokes are funny sometimes, but aren’t to be taken seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

The bible is loaded with scientific errors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

The bible is loaded with historical errors: https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817

The bible is loaded with internal contradictions: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

In addition to being loaded with immoral stuff about slavery, the rights of women, incest, rape, and many other things we have covered here many times. Happy to cite again if you need.

So there's a whole bunch of evidence your post is incorrect.

This link doesn’t identify the author of the page. It isn’t annotated. There are no sources, footnotes, links, or citations.

Nothing at your link can be verified. None of the information could even be submitted as a paper at your local community college for credit in a college course because the professor would need the sources annotated and the information credited to the people who verified the information.

Your professor might give you a chance to add what was necessary so they could grade your paper but that is doubtful because by the time you are in college they expect you to know that information and to do what was expected independently.

The professor would already have give you a set of instructions about annotation and crediting sources and you would have failed to do those things.

I'll do the homework for you, as you ask. Tell me specifically which points you disagree with.

The author should have identified their sources and provided the exact place to find the information. That is standard across all scholarship.

How about you identify the author?

Each point needs a source, annotated and detailed in the footnotes.

You can provide that, as the author (who is anonymous and unknown) did not.

Every work of scholarship must have ab identified author and list their education, degrees, etc.

Since you won't list the points you disagree with? You won't accept that I will provide the citations?

Why not?

I would like to know the author of this link and where they found their information?

You can provide it here, no one is stopping you from providing it. Please proceed.

The first post, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors, has citations for every single claim. It even contains mathmatical proof therein.

The second one https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817 as an example:

One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#:~:text=Theudas%20(%2F%CB%88%CE%B8ju%CB%90d,in%20a%20short%2Dlived%20revolt.

Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus good enough a source for you? Unless you think Josephus was a forgery, which is fine with me, but opens a lot of other discussions.

Maybe these are better historical inaccuracy links for you:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
https://biblefails.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/scientific-and-historical-inaccuracies-in-the-bible/

I have many more if you need them.

The third one: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ is self citing as it is simply textual criticism of a single book.

There you go!

So you don’t know the author of the page?

Which page you are talking about? I have listed multiple. What issue do you take with what has been cited? You wanted citations, you got them.

So until you provide equally cited contradictions, you can't even dispute, let alone settle, the points made, and they will stand.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Don't you wonder what shrimp tastes like? I am certain you have never eaten it, since it is explicitly forbidden, just like gay sex.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Why do you care what I do?

Do you think other people must live according to your rules?

This is perhaps the most ironic post in the history of DCUM.

PP, look at the title of the thread. THIS thread.

If people weren't trying to make other people live according to their religion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's YOU that wants what you claim is unacceptable.

Nobody makes you believe their religion.

America has freedom that is unique regarding religion; we can choose to be religious or not religious. We don’t have an official state religion. We can believe whatever we want. Each person chooses what they want to believe. It’s a founding principle.

How are you forced to live according to biblical standards?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

The bible is loaded with scientific errors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

The bible is loaded with historical errors: https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817

The bible is loaded with internal contradictions: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

In addition to being loaded with immoral stuff about slavery, the rights of women, incest, rape, and many other things we have covered here many times. Happy to cite again if you need.

So there's a whole bunch of evidence your post is incorrect.

This link doesn’t identify the author of the page. It isn’t annotated. There are no sources, footnotes, links, or citations.

Nothing at your link can be verified. None of the information could even be submitted as a paper at your local community college for credit in a college course because the professor would need the sources annotated and the information credited to the people who verified the information.

Your professor might give you a chance to add what was necessary so they could grade your paper but that is doubtful because by the time you are in college they expect you to know that information and to do what was expected independently.

The professor would already have give you a set of instructions about annotation and crediting sources and you would have failed to do those things.

I'll do the homework for you, as you ask. Tell me specifically which points you disagree with.

The author should have identified their sources and provided the exact place to find the information. That is standard across all scholarship.

How about you identify the author?

Each point needs a source, annotated and detailed in the footnotes.

You can provide that, as the author (who is anonymous and unknown) did not.

Every work of scholarship must have ab identified author and list their education, degrees, etc.

Since you won't list the points you disagree with? You won't accept that I will provide the citations?

Why not?

I would like to know the author of this link and where they found their information?

You can provide it here, no one is stopping you from providing it. Please proceed.

The first post, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors, has citations for every single claim. It even contains mathmatical proof therein.

The second one https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817 as an example:

One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#:~:text=Theudas%20(%2F%CB%88%CE%B8ju%CB%90d,in%20a%20short%2Dlived%20revolt.

Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus good enough a source for you? Unless you think Josephus was a forgery, which is fine with me, but opens a lot of other discussions.

Maybe these are better historical inaccuracy links for you:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
https://biblefails.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/scientific-and-historical-inaccuracies-in-the-bible/

I have many more if you need them.

The third one: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ is self citing as it is simply textual criticism of a single book.

There you go!

So you don’t know the author of the page?

Which page you are talking about? I have listed multiple. What issue do you take with what has been cited? You wanted citations, you got them.

So until you provide equally cited contradictions, you can't even dispute, let alone settle, the points made, and they will stand.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Don't you wonder what shrimp tastes like? I am certain you have never eaten it, since it is explicitly forbidden, just like gay sex.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Why do you care what I do?

Do you think other people must live according to your rules?

This is perhaps the most ironic post in the history of DCUM.

PP, look at the title of the thread. THIS thread.

If people weren't trying to make other people live according to their religion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's YOU that wants what you claim is unacceptable.

Nobody makes you believe their religion.

America has freedom that is unique regarding religion; we can choose to be religious or not religious. We don’t have an official state religion. We can believe whatever we want. Each person chooses what they want to believe. It’s a founding principle.

How are you forced to live according to biblical standards?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

I don’t take any advice from drug addicted comedians.

Carlin didn’t believe in God, but believed God sent people to hell?

A God that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything, much less send humans to hell.

It's not advice, it's a joke. Showing the ridiculousness and moral repulsiveness of your claim that god is sending people to hell.

You are the one making that claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors.

The bible is loaded with scientific errors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

The bible is loaded with historical errors: https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817

The bible is loaded with internal contradictions: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

In addition to being loaded with immoral stuff about slavery, the rights of women, incest, rape, and many other things we have covered here many times. Happy to cite again if you need.

So there's a whole bunch of evidence your post is incorrect.

This link doesn’t identify the author of the page. It isn’t annotated. There are no sources, footnotes, links, or citations.

Nothing at your link can be verified. None of the information could even be submitted as a paper at your local community college for credit in a college course because the professor would need the sources annotated and the information credited to the people who verified the information.

Your professor might give you a chance to add what was necessary so they could grade your paper but that is doubtful because by the time you are in college they expect you to know that information and to do what was expected independently.

The professor would already have give you a set of instructions about annotation and crediting sources and you would have failed to do those things.

I'll do the homework for you, as you ask. Tell me specifically which points you disagree with.

The author should have identified their sources and provided the exact place to find the information. That is standard across all scholarship.

How about you identify the author?

Each point needs a source, annotated and detailed in the footnotes.

You can provide that, as the author (who is anonymous and unknown) did not.

Every work of scholarship must have ab identified author and list their education, degrees, etc.

Since you won't list the points you disagree with? You won't accept that I will provide the citations?

Why not?

I would like to know the author of this link and where they found their information?

You can provide it here, no one is stopping you from providing it. Please proceed.

The first post, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors, has citations for every single claim. It even contains mathmatical proof therein.

The second one https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39817 as an example:

One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#:~:text=Theudas%20(%2F%CB%88%CE%B8ju%CB%90d,in%20a%20short%2Dlived%20revolt.

Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus good enough a source for you? Unless you think Josephus was a forgery, which is fine with me, but opens a lot of other discussions.

Maybe these are better historical inaccuracy links for you:

https://religions.wiki/index.php/The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source
https://biblefails.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/scientific-and-historical-inaccuracies-in-the-bible/

I have many more if you need them.

The third one: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ is self citing as it is simply textual criticism of a single book.

There you go!

So you don’t know the author of the page?

Which page you are talking about? I have listed multiple. What issue do you take with what has been cited? You wanted citations, you got them.

So until you provide equally cited contradictions, you can't even dispute, let alone settle, the points made, and they will stand.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Don't you wonder what shrimp tastes like? I am certain you have never eaten it, since it is explicitly forbidden, just like gay sex.

Why can't you just have your book as a wonderful metaphor for your life? Why do you have to make it literal?

Why do you care what I do?

Do you think other people must live according to your rules?

This is perhaps the most ironic post in the history of DCUM.

PP, look at the title of the thread. THIS thread.

If people weren't trying to make other people live according to their religion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's YOU that wants what you claim is unacceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that’s fine. Hell has unlimited room. As they will one day come to find.

How very Christian of you!

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you!
- George Carlin

George Carlin was addicted to drugs and got his daughter addicted to drugs.

Really a sad man who hurt his daughter very much.

You just love ad hominems, don't you! And you love to ignore the point! And you don't understand I was quoting a joke to make fun of your evil wish that I suffer eternally. I don't wish that on you, or anybody. That makes you a bad person, and me a better one than you. End period.

Prefer that to the Carlin quote?

I don’t take any advice from drug addicted comedians.

Carlin didn’t believe in God, but believed God sent people to hell?

A God that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything, much less send humans to hell.