Atheists annoy me a lot, mostly because all they do is shove their opinions in my face and try to use the bible as a counter-argument by taking it out of context. Obviously, some people here might already realize this (I presume the all-omnipotent Hakker and Ichigo know this), and this is not directed towards them. Instead it is directed to anyone who might be swayed by the filthy lies of the a****** atheists.

From going to a Jesuit run high school, I'm pretty sure I know more about the Bible and what it represents than 90% of the people here, so I think I know what the hell I'm talking about. Also, I am a Deist and I believe in a divine creator of the universe, but nothing more.

The Old Testament
This a big argument for atheists. They love to yap about the Big Bang (which is a theory, not substantial evidence), and they use the story as an example of why God doesn't exist. ("The world created in 6 days? That's impossible!")

The creations tales, like most of the Old Testament, was a way for people to try to comprehend their world. There was no science back then, and the ancient people needed a way to explain why things existed. It is no different than African or Native American stories of the creation of the world, so I don't see why the atheists like to pick on this one story alone when there are other like it (Probably because they like to attack Christians because it makes them feel important?).

As I mentioned earlier, the Old Testament is basically stories attempting to explain natural phenomena and the telling of the journey of the Hebrews. Obviously there are exaggerations (fall of Jericho, parting of the Red Seas, etc.), but most of the stories are so old, they represent ancient folklore. I've never seen anyone attack tribal folklore for being unrealistic, so why attack the Jewish folklore?

The reason God is so instrumental in the stories is because it's supposed to emphasize the importance of the Hebrew people. (it is their history. Obviously histories of other cultures like the Egyptians emphasize that they are important because they're writing it)

The New Testament
The big deal here is that the atheists like to attack the Christian faith because it's so popular. (Why else target them? There are other religions that have gods too, you know) However, at the same time, the fundamentalists are also incorrect. Both sides see the New Testament as the doctrine that tells everybody to worship God because he is the only real God.

Jesus' ministry was not about telling everybody God loved them; he was a figure of social change.
All Jesus really did was go around telling people to care for the poor and that material riches won't lead you to salvation (heaven and hell are used metaphorically. They don't literally mean there is a good and bad place when you die. When people serve the weak and downtrodden, they will become better people. Conversely, if they do nothing and mistreat others, they will instead be bad. It's very simplistic.)

The goal was to promote social justice, which is why many (non-fundamental) sects of the Church are devoted to working with the poor.
Christianity is not focused on God or Heaven and Hell, it is meant to focus on making a change in society for the better.

Jesus was killed not because he was holy or anything like that, he was killed because he was a criminal who riled up the Jews and could have caused a mass riot, as well as being a basic pain in the a** for the occupying forces from Rome.

The miracles? Those only appear in John's gospel, and he was focusing more on the fact that Jesus was not only a human being, but the son of God and therefore divine.
His death and rising? An offhand remark on his divinity. Also can be interpreted as suggesting that Jesus spent his life working to help the dejected and was rewarded for his work with a literal heaven, but that probably stretches it.
However, just because there are a couple instances of Jesus being partly divine does not change to purpose of his ministry from social justice to "God exists."

The various books after the gospels focus on how the Apostles shared Jesus's message of justice. There are some instances of God talk, but those have been blown way out of proportion by both sides in the debate.

Revelations was written by some random loon named John (not the same dude as the Apostle or the gospel writer) who was probably high.
It has nothing to do with the rest of the bible and I have no clue what the church was smoking when they chose to make it a canonical book and place it in the Bible. Everyone who tries to interpret it into fact is an idiot. It is a story.

So yeah, that's the Bible.

TL;DR
It's a f*** novel combined with rules on how you should live your life, get over it.

As an Atheist who enjoys a religious debate, I can say I hate it when Atheists take the bible out of context as an argument in their favor. If you're going to make a point at least make a legitimate one.
And in said arguments, I target religion in general rather than Christianity specifically.

What is your evidence that attacks Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other religions then?

Or are you just not well versed in any of them to make an articulate argument against them?

fundamentalists believe in some parts of leviticus but not all of it for some reason

i dont know why

Most of Leviticus wouldn't work in our society anyway.

Every religion, lack of religion, and anti-religion has it's belligerent assholes.

To be honest, I hate it even more when people claiming to be Christians don't understand Christianity.

However, based on what you're saying, I think that the Christians you've been talking to fall under the "liberal Christian" category rather than the traditional sort. If I recall correctly, the Jesuits are also Catholic, so the distinction between what I say and what you've said may be due to what can be labelled as denominational differences.

But going through your points, as a Protestant Christian sitting somewhere between liberal and fundamental Christianity and one with the compressed exposure and exploration of over a decade and a half.

The argument I generally hold to when understanding the Jewish explanation of the creation of the universe is that the first 3 chapters of Genesis (or thereabouts) are very poetic. You have constant repetition and a set structure. The poem was designed to show some aspects of the universe

1. The earth came had a beginning and came around deliberately (Gen 1:1)
2. There is one god (Gen 1:1)
3. The universe is ordered and to be understood (Use of repitition of sentence structure each segment contains things such as "and God said", "and there was evening and morning, the xth day" and "God saw the .... and it was good" etc.)
4. Humanity was made to rule over the world, under the god that put them there (Gen 1:26)
5. Humanity was to be in a relationship with the god that put them there
6. The relationship that was meant to be between man and wife

And a couple others things. It was not meant to outline the series of steps that led to the universe as it is now (try telling people 5000+ years ago about microwave radiation). Tied into this is the fact that the 'days' are seen to be figurative days, not literal ones.

As for the rest of what you said on the Old Testament, yes, the Jews have been outlined as incredibly arrogant (see Ezekiel for example) but much of the Old Testament didn't outline how good the Jews were, most of it outlined how good God was to the Jews and how bad the Jews were (heck, most of the books of Chronicles outline dodgy kings and many of the prophets are telling the Israelites that they're doing the wrong thing)

Onto the New Testament.

Based on a comparison of the number of people who became Christian before and after Jesus, I'd disagree about your point on social change. Jesus' ministry was about telling people about what was going to happen and how they were to live in response to his actions. Sure, these are a form of social change, but they were to be viewed in light of his coming (or past now) death and resurrection. I certainly agree with you that his teachings weren't to say "God exists" as Judaism was most prominent. If he wanted to tell people that "God exists" then he'd have left Israel permanently.

Also, the point about a metaphorical heaven and hell could be rejected with relative ease (Matt 13, Matt 22, John 10 etc.)

You don't live for eternity, literally or metaphorically, just by serving the weak.

That said however, you'll find that it's not just non-fundamental sects of Christianity that are devoted to working with the poor. Organisations such as the Salvation Army, World Vision and Vinnies are all groups that spend a lot of time and effort into working with the poor etc.

I'll come back here in a sec to work on this paragraph, point it out if I never got around to it.

As for miracles only appearing in John's gospel, that's not right at all. John has the least miracles (only 7) and actually focuses the most on the teaching themselves out of any of the Synoptic Gospels (ie. the other 3). You don't have to look far to see examples if you read any of the other 3. Luke, for example, is scattered with healings (probably as Luke himself was a doctor and had interest in those things) among other things to the point where it gets to the stage of having chapter after chapter, healing after healing. The other gospels also have quite a few.

His death and rising occur in 3 of the gospels (and some argue all 4, but I think that it was made up by someone else in Mark's gospel and that section can't be regarded as inspired by God [the footnotes for the last chapter or so of Mark will tell you that earliest manuscripts don't have that section]). I'm sorry, it's hard to connect with your argument on no miracles when it's just blatantly wrong.

The books after the gospels are Acts, the letters and Revelation (no 's'). Acts reveals the Acts of the Apostles (hence its name) and was designed to show the work of God in the growth of the Christian church. The letters are designed to teach and encourage those around them.

Revelation was written by a guy called John. While we aren't 100% sure that he is the gospel writer/apostle (who we DO know are the same people), where he was suggests that it is the same person, although we can not know for sure. The way I approach Revelation is with great tentativeness. While the early and late chapters are clear teachings, the bit in the middle is full of symbolism or weirdness and it's very hard, probably impossible, to know for sure if you've interpreted things correctly.

As for Leviticus (and the rest of the books of the law), the way it's approached is that there are 3 types of laws
- Ritual/ceremonial
- Moral
- Judicial/civil

The traditional laws were ways of making the Jews appear different. These include things such as not wearing clothing of two types of fabric together at all.

Moral laws are things such as the 10 commandments. How individuals were meant to live.

Judicial laws are how the governing body or priests were supposed to run certain aspects of society. These also included punishments.

As Christians, the only category deemed to be stuck to are the moral laws. Since laws such as the Sabbath are hard to categorise, they're placed under moral laws, but not followed as religiously as Jews do and it's reinterpreted as just ensuring there's time taken to enjoy yourself and the world.

Cleanliness laws for example are no longer applicable in face of Jesus' death + resurrection (Acts 10) etc.

As the ritual/ceremonial laws were designed to make the Jews different from the surrounding nations, Christians claim to be different (and I think the fact that they are bagged out based on their actual beliefs more than any other religion [or very close to it] suggests that they are, for whatever reason takes your fancy) due to the Holy Spirit and different attitudes in light of faith in Jesus. Note however, that different is not the same as superior.

Oh no I misspelled the Book of Revelations! All my credibility gone!

Anyway, I disagree with your on the Jesus point.

People could not become Christians before Jesus. Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings and one could not have become a Christian before he taught that. Second, the Christians who converted did not follow his ministry as strictly as he stated it, but approached it in a more ceremonial way, which was the formation of the early Christian church.

And I disagree, Jesus preached that the downtrodden will get what they deserve. The kingdom of God wasn't heaven, the Kingdom of God meant the time after Christ, when the meek shall inherit the earth and the poor shall be rich.

The point was to throw away all unnecessary, earthly possessions and treat people not by how rich or poor they are, but instead treat them as human beings.

In context, Jerusalem and the surrounding areas were not great places to live, and the disparity between the rich and poor. Even the temple priests lived in luxury while the poor could not even muster enough to pray in the temple. There was much corruption, and Jesus called for a change in what was going on. Christianity was founded on working with the poor. Unlike other religions in the area, it was not as focused on worshiping a god. While there is worship, most followed the death of Jesus with the creation of the first churches.
This is where the issue pops up, because the church basically developed it's own doctrine in the early days, instead focusing more on mass and worship than the actual work. Jesus emphasized prayer through helping fellow man, not praying to god alone.

I have some good backup quotations:

Luke 18
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Matthew 5

He said:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 6
24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

I like these because they show Jesus' commitment to the idea of social justice, that he was there to tell the people to fix corruption and find a place in a better society where everyone has a fair chance at life.

On to the miracles, I pointed out john because his is much different in the writing than the other three. He covers different stories than the others. When I said he focused on miracles, I meant such instances as the water being transformed into wine. The pure showy ones that proved he was divine without a doubt.
Yes the other books have miracles (sending the demon from the man, reviving the dead, curing the blind, etc.), but I wanted to focus on the fact that John was a bit different in how he went out of his way to include other stories to prove the divinity.

I never argued that only John had miracles, I argued that he focused on the aspects of divinity, nothing about the miracles in all 4 gospels and their comparisons.

And furthermore, Jesus wasn't the only "miracle man" in Jerusalem at the time. There have always been people saying they can heal others. Honestly, someone running around and healing people wasn't revolutionary, and I didn't want to focus on something I can't explain.

On the metaphorical heaven deal, you're pretty much quoting scripture and saying that it proves heaven isn't metaphorical at all.
So if Heaven and Hell exist, please give me some concrete evidence outside of the Bible.

And I meant that heaven is a reward for serving for justice. If you are a just person you shall be rewarded for your actions, whether noticed or not. If you are wicked you shall be punished. There is no literal heaven or hell and you don't live for eternity

I know I've used this video to death, but it pretty much sums up how a lot of Atheists seem to believe Christians think;



Seriously, it's their wet dream to be Martin Sheen in this situation.

Of course, they completely forget that Sheen's character is a Christian himself, because obviously there can only be one (extreme) way of thought in all of Christianity.

I might just start claiming to be Christian, arrogant Atheists are a funner target, nowadays.

No, I'm absolutely not. If anything I've said comes across as being directed at only Christianity and those similar to it, it's because I'm the most familiar with it. I'm not excusing it, that's just the way it is.

You don't see many fundamentalists in Australia, nowadays.
At least, I haven't, and I've lived in two major cities. I mean, it might be rural, like America.

hey guys i just dont believe in god you have fun with religion im ok with it

You dont believe in yourself?

Yo, the problem with 100% of beliefs, even in the most benign ways, is that they're dogmatic. To believe something is to be hypocritical of your own human error. How can you POSSIBLY be 100% right about something as big as the genesis of life and the origin of the universe? That's ridiculous, when we have such limited minds. Hell, not even the smartest people in the world know 100% of human discovered information, so why are they making declarative statements about things far beyond us?

It's directed at the topic's title, and the constant world wide debate over religion.