Killer indicted for 2,128,345 murders

[Beldaran]

Taken from This blog. (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html?rf=39m)



I counted the number of people that were killed by the God in the Bible. I came up with 2,128,335, which, of course, greatly underestimates God's total death toll, since it only includes those killings for which specific numbers are given. No attempt was made to include the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc., with which the good book is filled. Still, 2 million is a respectable number even for world class killers.

But how does this compare with Satan? How many did he kill in the Bible?

Well I can only find ten, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet. I'm talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job.

God 2,128,345+
Satan 10


Well, that's hillarious and interesting.

Of course, a Christian can easily make the point that a vast majority of those 2.1 million people did everything possible to spit in god's face and deserve what they got, and that Satan has hatched a plan to ultimately destroy EVERYONE. Thus, I think it's safe to just not debate this, but rather discuss the entertainment value of the statistic itself, without launching a theological debate.

In other words, I found this story funny and wanted to post it, and I don't mean for it to spark a serious debate, causing the thread to be moved to Religious Debate. However, if you guys decide to take it there, then so be it. ... but it wasn't my intention.:googly:

[phattonez]

Why would you get an exact number and then put a + symbol next to it?

[Beldaran]

Why would you get an exact number and then put a + symbol next to it?

Probably for the multitude of reasons listed in the paragraph I quoted?

[weeps for the future of reading comprehension skills] :scared:

[punkonjunk1024]

Ah, christianity. God is a merciful loving master. If you bend down and suck his dick in praise.

[MacWeirdo42]

Ah, christianity. God is a merciful loving master. If you bend down and suck his dick in praise.
And even then, He might just kill you any way, just out of boredom. No wonder so many "Christians" fail at being decent human beings. With a god like that, what can you expect?

[Verman]

God like what MacWierdo?

What does that comment mean?

[MacWeirdo42]

God like what MacWierdo?

What does that comment mean?
I'm just saying I guess you really can't expect people to act better than their own God, and seeing as how God is something of a prick, I'm not surprised that many "Christians" are pricks.

Oh, and I know, New Testament, I'm insulting "real" Christians, but here's my problem. Many "Christians," even, believe in a vengeful, wrathful God who kills those who oppose Him. Let's not forget all those jerks who came out after 9/11 to say that it was God's divine punishment for our sinful ways. Therefore, I don't really care what the New Testament says, because whatever these people are supposed to be believing in, they clearly don't.

[Verman]

Personally I think that 9/11 happened because some idiots flew a plane into a building. I think God sits up there and enjoys himself much like anyone of us would do. Whether he is vengeful or wrathful is iffy.. I think its more or less a nice big game of simearth he is enjoying.

[Breaker]

God is great.

[Blonde799]

I don't think God would intentionally raise hell on earth. I think it's more like, "You humans have dug your graves, now lay in 'em you evil bastards!"

Because really, we fuck up WAAAAAYYYYYYYY too much.

[punkonjunk1024]

I'm not trying to make this into a sexy exciting bible debate, but I think any liberal christian and us athiests and agnostics and general christian haters can agree -
Most of the bible is pure, complete bullshit in the purest form bullshit comes in.
and our purist, bullheaded retarded translations, and the catholic church's lil "edits" to the bible kind of stripped it of alot of it's value, even as a book of ideas, not word for word occurances.

[lord_jamitossi]

Yeah, the bible's got a lot of funny crap in it. I mean, Revelations alone is hysterical. Someone (I have weird friends) once quoted me a passage in which a dragon watches a woman give birth and then eats the baby. We all know that's it's all true, too. Scary shit.

[AtmaWeapon]

Ugh. I think Beldaran had good intentions for this thread but it is immediately turning in to a "bash Christianity" thread.

I'm not going to dispute the statistic based on the grounds that Beldaran has already explained my defense: the major genocidal events were usually the direct result of some nation spitting in God's face. If this is the case, God was playing the role of executioner what with the wages of sin being death.

That said, Satan is the source of the temptation that brought death upon us all, thus in my opinion he is indirectly responsible for every death and there is no such thing as "natural death" since God's original plan did not include it.

However, these views can be doctrine-specific and I'm sure a so-called "Christian hater" would view them as poop. Moving on to the trash heaps in the thread:


No wonder so many "Christians" fail at being decent human beings. With a god like that, what can you expect?Find a religion that has been sinless and caused no harm. In this context, the term "religion" can include science (which has claimed many victims) and atheism (which has its share of criminals. You are making the claim that no religion is better than its God and simultaneously implying that some better, more perfect God exists. If this were debate I would challenge you to provide evidence. Since this is not a debate I'll just call you a troll and move on to the next blunder.


Oh, and I know, New Testament, I'm insulting "real" Christians, but here's my problem. Many "Christians," even, believe in a vengeful, wrathful God who kills those who oppose Him. Let's not forget all those jerks who came out after 9/11 to say that it was God's divine punishment for our sinful ways. Therefore, I don't really care what the New Testament says, because whatever these people are supposed to be believing in, they clearly don't.Wrong. I will debate this point. You are making the fallacy of composition; that is, attempting to state that because the parts of a whole have a property, the whole demonstrates that property.

The jerks that you refer to are one sect of Christianity (and I feel they are quite misguided; history shows that acts of God tend to be surgical strikes on specific targets -- the 9/11 attacks hit a wide range of victims and likely included many of the righteous). The Christians that believe in a vengeful God are yet another portion, though belief in this tends to vary from person to person within different denominations from what I have observed. The only characteristic that should be shared between religions categorized as "Christian" is the belief that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah and only through Him is salvation can be obtained. Any deviation from this single point and a religion cannot carry the "Christian" moniker. Any other points of doctrine vary widely by denomination, region, and individual.

Furthermore, since you are obviously not Christian, please provide the credentials that make you an authority on Christian doctrines and beliefs.

Next failures:

Most of the bible is pure, complete bullshit in the purest form bullshit comes in.
and our purist, bullheaded retarded translations, and the catholic church's lil "edits" to the bible kind of stripped it of alot of it's value, even as a book of ideas, not word for word occurances.
I mean, Revelations alone is hysterical. Someone (I have weird friends) once quoted me a passage in which a dragon watches a woman give birth and then eats the baby.This less-than-pure conservative Christian begs to differ on both of these points. Much of the Mosaic Law is not observed today, but it does form the foundation for the moral values upheld by Christianity. Jesus simply summed up all of Mosaic Law by attempting to convince people to not be such jerks to each other. However, I find it difficult to argue since you provided no examples of scripture that are spectacular in their absurdity.

Revelation is strange, but there are some generally accepted reasons why (each has their merits but it is unknown which is most true): It is the description of the war that ends all human life, and an ancient man lacked the appropriate words to describe the technology he watched. Could the strange beasts be tanks or other weaponry with the stylized squadron tags of animals on them? John was in prison when he wrote Revelation, and his communications were censored. Revelation is some coded message that was dismissed as the harmless writings of a madman and holds an unknown relevance so long as we are not deciphering the code. I tend to lean towards the "ancient man doesn't know what to say" theory. Either way, its message is consistent with the rest of the Bible: evil doesn't win.

All in all, I'm getting tired of seeing any thread that vaguely involves Christianity immediately become "Christians :rolleyes:". I thought we were supposed to be the bad guys, aggressively pushing our beliefs on others and considering anyone who disagrees inferior. I simply don't understand how many people can simultaneously ridicule any man who judges another by the color of skin and judge another by faith in a religion.

Some of us enjoy science and logic as well, you know. To deny that which concrete evidence proves is foolish.

Now I leave by addressing the counter-argument I see coming (which happens to be fallacious by making a hasty generalization):

"Oh but AtmaWeapon, all the Christians I have ever met are jerks so I am basing my opinion on this."

Yes, yes. I live in Mississippi. A major problem is poverty. At my school, 80% of the students were black, and of those I'd estimate 90% of were on some form of government aid (I base this on the number of free lunch students the school had; typically a poverty-level income is a prerequisite). The black students at my school did not care for education and were disruptive, violent, and all around horrible people.

Should I assume that every black person in the world is trash based on a sample population of 1,000 individuals? I'd hardly think so. In fact, when I lived in Tennessee for a year I found the black people in the region to be quite well-mannered and rarely encountered the thugged-out alpha male that was a common sight in my hometown. My sample was not geographically diverse or numerically significant, therefore any conclusion can only be valid for the specific set of students I encountered (and there were outliers that violate the conclusion).

Now compare the number of Christians you have met to the total number of Christians in the world (a number which varies greatly depending on the bias of the source). Using a fairly reliable source (The Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/religion/), we see that the US alone can claim approximately 133 million Christians. Have you encountered a geographically diverse sample of numerical significance?

Sorry to take a crap on your thread like this Bel, but I just couldn't get over the very short amount of time it took for the thread to go from "let's not start a fight guys this is a joke type thread" to "Ahahaha Christians believe stupid stuff let me take this opportunity to jump on an internet bandwagon!"

In other news Verman I like your style. I disagree to a certain extent but I think there is some truth to the observation and you earn the "I actually followed the OP's intent" award (which I have lost :().

I guess it's time to get back on topic with the light-hearted humor. I'll make it at my expense as this was something that I couldn't help but laugh at. A while back I was going to the grocery store and I noticed a pretty awful parking job by some junky truck. Here's an example of what it looked like:


| | /------/
|Lines| / /| |
|Where| /truck / | |
| you | / / | |
|park | ------- | |
| | | | |
This in itself is not remarkable, but then my gaze fell upon the man's front license plate:

GOD IS MY CO-PILOT

I immediately decided that while God may be able to do the flying for me, I am going to take over for the landings. I also decided I probably got some demerits for making that joke, but it was just SO easy to make!

[punkonjunk1024]

no examples of scripture that are spectacular in their absurdity.
WHOA BUDDY.
I wasn't aware that I had to, I thought it was a given, but if you feel that I must, I'll quote just a handful of my favorites.

God says kill homosexuals -
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If I wear a dress, or moocow wears pants, we become abominations unto the lord:
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Bad kid? Screw ritalin, stone his rebelious ass!
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. 20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

And the christians say the muslim texts are violent and religiously intolerant?
Deuteronomy 13:13-17 13 ‘Corrupt men have gone out from among you and enticed the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods”’—which you have not known— 14 then you shall inquire, search out, and ask diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination was committed among you, 15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it, all that is in it and its livestock—with the edge of the sword. 16 And you shall gather all its plunder into the middle of the street, and completely burn with fire the city and all its plunder, for the LORD your God. It shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again.

God rules! Rape a married woman, you die, rape a virgin, and she's yours! LETS FUCK SOME VIRGINS!
Deuteronomy 22:23-29 23 “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.


I guess being kind of feminine means YOU AINT GETTING INTO THE PEARLY GATES, YOU FRILLY FAGGOT
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Sorry ladies, but shut the fuck up unless I say. Really.
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

More shut up women
1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.




I'm sorry, but WHAT IS NOT ABSURD ABOUT THIS PILE OF STEAMING VIRAL INFECTIOUS BULLSHIT?

If you agree with this, or take all of the bible seriously, I can say with complete conviction, not blind ignorance, that you are completely and utterly retarded.
And these are just a few examples. I've forgotten a few of the greatest passages I've seen.
These things... disgust me.

And I changed my mind, I don't mind making this a religious debate, but maybe we should start our own thread?

[Saffith]

I've looked into this enough in the past to know that at least some of those can be attributed to poor translation. These two most especially:


Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.That one's especially confusing. In Hebrew, it's idiomatic, and it's not entirely clear what it means. It seems most likely it's referring specifically to anal sex.
I'll admit that's still rather disagreeable, but it is at least a bit less strict than it might be.


1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"Effeminate" doesn't make any sort of sense there. In terms of morality, the original word, malakos, would be better translated as "weak." Instead of "effeminate," it should say something like "morally weak" or "licentious."


It's partly the case in this one, too:

Deuteronomy 22:23-29 23 “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.This particular version's wording is a bit confusing. To be brief, what it's saying as that if a woman doesn't resist being raped (the parts about crying out), she's basically considered to have consented.

[MacWeirdo42]

Atma, I may not be a Christian now, but I have been for most of my life, and I've always found theology to be a very interesting subject. I was raised Episcopalian, and my grandfather was a bishop, for cryin' out loud (recently retired).

My attack on Christianity - you know what, you're right. All religions have their problems. This being a Christian nation, however, I find the ones of Christianity to be most relevant. Anyway, it's one thing to go out and do something terrible for your own sake - but the thought of going out and doing something terrible and claiming that this was God's will just sickens me. That's what bothers me about "Christians."

So why do I take out my frustration with them on the whole of Christianity? Because maybe they are a minority, but they are an incredibly vocal minority, and one whose power has been steadily growing in the past few years.

I know there are many mainstream Christians who don't hold such beliefs. Believe me, I understand Christianity a lot better than I come off. I know I make sweeping generalizations, etc., but I get it. I'm just so sick of dealing with those types that I really don't care anymore.

Aside from that, I'm still rather a fan of Christian beliefs, although I can't really get behind the whole "Jesus is God" business... I worry that the Gospel writers might have embellished a bit, and anyway, it's the story, not the truth of the events, that matter to me (which doesn't tend to go over well in most Christian circles).

[Beldaran]

When I go out into the world everyday and I see all the stupid, corrupt, evil people running around and making things miserable for everyone else, sometimes I feel like I can really get behind the concept of a vengeful, wrathful god that kicks ass and takes names. I mean, I know that if I were god, the death toll would be much, much larger than it is in the Bible.

Of course, according to the bible, at some point god hatched a plan to create a filter with which he can separate the chaff from the wheat (Jesus = the filter) and he very sneakily changed his policy from vengeance and rules to grace and forgiveness, with the caveat that you had to allow him to rebuild your spirit from the ground up. This way, he could build a new humanity that was infused with his good spirit and Satan wouldn't be able to bork it up. (or something). In context, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

I guess my point is that whether you are a christian or not (and I am not), it's not really logical to say "God is a dick, or a moron or whatever because I can see from the bible that nothing he does makes sense." You don't really know what God was thinking or why he did things. And you don't really know what went on between him and the people he did things to. So maybe we should stop bashing on Christians for trusting him.

A huge percentage of people are loud, obnoxious fuck-tards who will go to any length to completely fuck everything up and make everything worse for everyone else. It makes sense, therefore, that a similar percentage of each sub-group of humanity are the same way. Millions of muslims are obnoxious dicks who ruin it for everyone else. Millions of Christians are obnoxious dicks who ruin it for everyone else. Millions of athiests are self-righteous pricks who make athiest intellectuals look like obnoxious dicks who ruin it for everyone else.

It is better to take each person as who they are, not the followers of whatever ideal they feel gives them hope and inspiration.

[lord_jamitossi]

Let's play "cover our asses while realizing Atma posted what is probably the smartest post yet in this thread!"

I'm a Christian. Everyone who knows me at all well knows it. I don't wear it on my sleeve, but I'm very willing to talk about God with pretty much whoever wants to.

I'm a member of the United Church of Canada (http://www.united-church.ca/ucc/summary.shtm). I posted my last comment in a very sarcastic tone, and the part Atma posted makes it sound like I'm bashing every Christian that ever existed. This I am not, the Bible has some incredibly wise and enlightening stuff in it, but there's also some pretty comic stuff too. I immediately react to a thread like this because I think that my denomination is being given a bad reputation by the fundamental church-goers who don't seem to catch on that the point of the bible is do onto others as you would have them do onto you. The rest is just commentary.

This post is getting argumentative, so I'm going to stop here.

In the mean-time, people who want a good laugh should check out Objective: Ministries (www.objectiveministries.org). Keep in mind that it's a joke site, it's pretty easy to be fooled on some of the pages.
Also, who in their right mind would read through the entire Bible and tally all the deaths? That must have taken forever...

[Dechipher]

Let's play "cover our asses while realizing Atma posted what is probably the smartest post yet in this thread!"


Actually, Belderan's post was quite well written as well.

[AtmaWeapon]

Holy smokes Beldaran did you change or something? Somehow I had you pegged under the "militant athiest" label but lately I am more convinced you are under the "awesome dude" category. I can't quite put into words how I read your stance, but I do believe it is close to what I consider an "enlightened individual" to be.

Now here's the fun part, addressed to punkonjunk. Suppose we polarize Biblical faith into two categories: Those who believe at least some of the Bible is true Those who believe all of the Bible is falsePeople in opposite categories cannot use the Bible to debate with each other. If you consider the text invalid, then it cannot be used in any way, shape, or form to support any other point than the fact that you feel it is invalid.

That said, there do seem to be instances where the Bible is extreme. Resolving the wrathful God with the loving God is one of the things that a person of faith must somehow explain to themselves. My personal belief is that God is still the wrathful entity He always was, but now Jesus is the liason with humanity. Since Jesus is the kind and forgiving entity, very little of God's wrath is unleashed on the world. Of course, if you don't believe in the religion at all, this makes no sense at all to you and you can pretty much just quit reading because I cannot defend my faith without using articles of faith as evidence.

Let's discuss how I resolve some of the examples you pointed out.

First, you have to understand that (by some interpretations) some of the early books of the Bible serve a double purpose: to establish God's moral code and to establish the laws of the Jews. This is why many of the "don't do this" rules are followed with "this is the punishment for so doing". The implied punishment for each sin is condemnation against God, but the physical imprisonment or abuse mandated as the punishment was added to satisfy man's justice. My belief is that in these cases, the modern Christian is to follow the laws of the land when it comes to doling out punishments for crimes.

God hates homosexuals
To be quite honest I think there is no other way to interpret this. However, the violent punishment clashes with the greatest commandment: "Love thy neighbor."

God would rather see the offender stoned; Jesus would rather see the offender repent and be saved. By my doctrine (and by the laws of my country, which I am also obligated by faith to obey) this means I am to treat a homosexual as I would any other man because my sins are as great as his.

God says NO to cross-dressing
I justify this the same as above; God is pointing out what He has dictated as sin; it is my job to avoid this sin to the best of my ability but to not judge those who commit the sin themselves.

God says kill bad kids
The wording of this verse alone seems to imply this is a "when all else fails" scenario. I can justify it using the God -> Jesus -> Humanity chain of command, but in this case I believe I can use logic and reason rather than a faith you do not believe in:

Think about ancient communities in the middle of the desert. Resources are scarce, and only through collective hard work can anyone flourish. Criminals and lazy people take from the community without giving back, in some cases causing harm that diminishes the community's ability to sustain itself. It is no surprise that the punishment for rebellion against the established authorities carried harsh punishment.

Furthermore, how many parents do you think would raise a kid for several years, then stone him because he failed to do his chores for one day? I think it is safe to say that this rule was rarely enacted. The verse, in my interpretation, is more like: "If no matter what you do, your child will not behave in a manner that is conducive to the society, and you have exhausted all other options, the penalty of death may convince them to behave." Still harsh, but admittedly effective and necessary to guarantee the survival of the community.

God wants to kill 'em all
No explanation for this other than it is a command from a self-described jealous God who was not very fond of his followers practicing idolatry. Once again, I believe the Christian's charge renders this command inapplicable.

Rules on Rape
This is a particularly complicated piece and I do believe it does seem quite harsh by the standards of today, but the 3 circumstances are as follows: If a man rapes a woman within a populated area, and the woman does nothing within her power to get help, then both the rapist and the woman are to be killed. Special case of the above rule for rural areas; no one was around to hear the woman anyway so there is no punishment to the woman for not calling out. If a man decides to rape an unmarried woman, he is to marry her and pay a debt to the father. Additionally, he can never divorce the woman.

The first two I actually find reasonable, given some of the other laws at the time. If the woman in the city did not call out (and there were not circumstances such as threat of death for raising attention), she was considered as accepting the sex, thus both were guilty of sexual immorality and punished likewise.

The third is very strange in our times, but this is because of a cultural change. Women in biblical times depended solely upon their husbands to sustain them. Furthermore, only a virgin could marry a man. The rapist of a virgin thus broke the society's structure by creating a woman who could not be married, a cruel fate when your life depends upon who you marry. In this case, the criminal was forced to marry the woman (along with paying the father a fine) and barred from ever divorcing the woman. This in itself poses some problems. However, when you consider the points about a desert community sustaining itself as described above, it makes sense that the community would have such a mechanism.

Anyway, what I feel the Christian should get from these verses is that rape is a sin and should not be done. The laws of our land should be followed for the criminal and victim. Since marriage is not as important to the survival of women these days, our laws do not contain any of the "forced marriage" scenarios.

No effeminate men?
Here we transition to the New Testament, so my previous establishment that the harsh punishments can be considered superceded by Jesus do not hold. However, I'm leaning towards Saffith's bad translation theory here. My Bible footnotes this word with the alternate translation "sexually immoral", which leads me to believe 'effeminate' is probably not what the verse intends. If I could read Hebrew, I'd verify, but I think bad translation is the right answer.

In fact, the New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9&version=31) does not use the same wording at all. Please remember that the KJV was made several hundred years ago, and English then is not English now.

Note this passage introduces "homosexual offenders" as well. This prompted me to read the rest of the chapter to reveal any "cherry picking" and it seems this is the culprit. Verse 11 is pretty much key to the point that was being made:
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.In other words "Those people who commit these sens and are not repentant will not inherit the kingdom of the Lord."

Nice try at cherry-picking though.

Role of Women
This is a pretty big point of contention. In particular, I admit I am poorly equipped to argue against this stance, because I have yet to reconcile my personal beliefs against what the Bible says.

However, I decided to do a brief amount of research so as to have a learning experience from this defeat. The first source I found was from Landover Baptist Church, and I didn't even read a word of it because I consider their extreme views to be in direct violation of my doctrine which invalidates any authority they would have. Next, I found a useful Wikipedia article (http://www.armageddongames.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1088407) which pointed out that several Christian churches seem to respect a more equal view of women.

How can a church decide such a specifically-worded verse is not applicable? Isn't all of the Bible supposed to be true? This question is the one that bothers me about my stance vs. Biblical teachings. However, the Wikipedia article led me down a train of thought that may provide an answer.

The Old Testament was written by distinguished authors and primarily documents the teachings of prophets who were directly associated with God. Because of this, all of the Old Testament must be considered 'canon', if you will. Portions of the New Testament provide direct eyewitness testimony of the teachings of Jesus, and we must consider these portions 'canon' as well. However, after Jesus' crucifixion there is no more direct connection to God and the books are the result of some disciples' interpretations of Jesus' teachings. Even the four gospels provide differences in information (not conflicts of fact; I mean to say that often some events that are covered in detail in one gospel are glanced over in another). Therefore, one may decide that these books of the New Testament are the beginnings of the formation of denominations amongst the Christians, where factions form around the interpretation of certain points of doctrine.

The basis of this argument is that all books following Jesus's crucifixion are interpretations of His teachings, and thus may be subject to the injection of personal doctrines. The Wikipedia article points out several examples of Jesus' teachings promoting equality; conversely, it points out several Biblical precedents for inequality. When faced with a question of which stance is right, I strongly support following Jesus' teachings over the writings of his apostles.

An alternative stance holds that the inequality did not promote discrimination, since leaders were under strict command to rule with Godliness and equality. This is Biblically supported but proves to still support gender discrimination.

I do admit that I am underprepared to provide an answer I strongly support at the moment, but I think the "Jesus over Paul" solution is satisfactory until I can find some resources to help with answering the question. I do thank you for providing that verse though; this is something I've meant to look into for a while.

Anyway, as you can see, I can rectify these so-called problems with the Bible through simple reasoning and researching the opinions of my brethren. As Beldaran pointed out, to a certain extent the Bible "making sense" depends on how strongly you believe God exists and is always right in what He does. Any wavering in this belief can produce interesting problems with following the Bible. Furthermore, a true lack of belief in God renders the Bible as nothing more than several hundred pages of ancient literature, so it's difficult to believe that my defense will change your mind at all.

Oh and sorry if I misinterpreted your sarcasm lord_jamitossi; such things are hard to detect over the internet sometimes and I was already in "find indefensible positions" mode.

[SomaLlama]

Me > God > Satan > You

[punkonjunk1024]

atma, I haven't slept in about 36 hours. So... if this post is hugely discheveled, await the next.

See, what I was attacking was just the hardcore "everything is true" christians.
I could probobly be considered more of a christian than anything else, although you know, I kinda adhere to some satanist principles, and I guess I'm kinda agnostic, too.

I think there is a god, and he's probobly pretty awesome. He's just not a sexist, racist homophobe.

And I honestly feel that the bible is either a single digit percentage of what he wants us to know, or a completely detached and relatively insane document with no relation to our creator. Which if these, I'm not quite sure.

But my arguement was for those who don't argue intepretations, because I have no beef with that. Although, in some places, god does, as that could be considered making your own god, ect blah blah blah whatever.

I had some statements in regards to individual points that i somethinged, but I've forgotten them in my slumberlessness-instilled stupor.
That may be the greatest 3 word combination ever.

I'm seriously going to bed.