The bible can be viewed as hate literature.

[Ronn_Bman]

Um... what about the good, nice, and positive points the Bible espouses? Those don't count? Seems kind of one sided to me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Attalus]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: That is a whole different can of worms, Attalus. If we cant even agree on a standard version and wording of the bible how can we begin to understand it or take it seriously?

I agree with your main point Hunter, which is that basing specific actions on disputed areas of ancient religious documents can be very treacherous. The whole of the Bible or Koran should be studied, and then counsel sought with religious scholars, but that is way too much trouble for some people.
And as for Freedom of Speech, Thomas Jefferson himself said that it didn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[Ronn_Bman]

What about the US Constitution and the history of English Common Law?

Because each is interpreted differently are they invalid? Why are they interpreted differently when they have been written in the same language?

Just because some may not agree with what the Bible has said is it really Hate literature?

[ 02-22-2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[TheCrimsomBlade]

Just remember God didn't write the Holy Bible, Monks and self proclamed profits did in a time when most people on the earth couldn't even read, the same goes for all other books and scrolls that pertain to the creator and all Religions. so who knows what is truth and what is made up by man for the betterment of man, thats why we here in america can believe what we want because, truth be known maybe all Religion is bogus and there isn't any suppream being and when we Die, thats it we turn to dust and nothing more, no heaven, no hell, no 27 virgins, no comming back just, POOF! your dead, plant and worm food and that's that!

[ 02-22-2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: TheCrimsomBlade ]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

What about the US Constitution and the history of English Common Law?

For starters the constitution and english common law are two seperate things. Neither claims to be any sort of translation or interpretation of the other. If the bible is the alleged true and inspired word of god then there shouldnt be any type of "interpretations". Either god said it or he didnt. That debate was done to death here a few weeks ago. As Attalus pointed out, "Thou shalt not kill" might be an improper translation, but it is accepted as fact by the majority of people who read the King James Bible. If they got something that simple wrong you have to wonder what else they screwed up.

[wellard]

Getting back on track, the judgement was imo correct. When you open a paper printed today you expect that paper to conform within reasonable standards of today’s society, no porn, no racial abuse, no religious animosity, and no anti gay rubbish. If you open the bible you open a document that was written 2000 years ago (at least) reflecting the views of people and written in context of society's expectations of that era.

The people had a right to get upset, the judgement was fair because the quotes where out of context and portrayed in an aggressive and inflammatory manner.

So why get upset about this? The judgement did not in any way devalue the bible and its just s$%t stirring to even suggest otherwise.

[Attalus]

Simply put, an Englishman of James I's day would find it incredible that anyone would everthink that the state did not have the right to execute anyone they found guilty of a crime thought so heinous as to deserve execution. Not only the meaning of words, but the paradigm of human life has changed considerably in the past 450 years. Just consider Dr. Johnson's sally, "When one is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates the faculties wonderfully."

[HolyWarrior]

Lemme see if I got this straight. Canadians think the Bible is hate literature, but we're supposed to 'tolerate' the Koran? Last time I looked, it wasn't Christians piloting the planes into the World Trade Center.

But then what can you expect from a country founded by people too chicken to join the American Revolution?