Christianity is greater Than atheism

Thank you for the timely response. > "First of all of the stories fro the old testament are not supposed to be interpreted literally,which you stated, but then you went ahead and interpreted them literally." No, I stated the passage and then tried to find the "symbolism" or "message" it was sending to the reader. Of course I viewed them literally at first but then I asked questions and made an analysis based upon what I thought the passage was trying to convey. > " The story's may have subject matter what one would consider immoral and wrongdoings, but just because something is done in a bible story does not mean it is supported as part of the faith. " Regardless of it being supported NOW, it is in the Bible - the holy text. And since it can be found there, I will analyze it as part of the Christian faith. But that does bring up another point which unsettles me. If Christianity is the basis of your morality and where your morals are found, how do you pick and choose which passages are "symbolic" and which ones are "literal"? Many theologians disregard the violent texts as "symbolic" since the texts are filled with what they consider to be immoral acts. But if the books of the Bible is the source for morality, then why do you not follow what God commanded? You say they are "immoral" and "wrong", but these are God's actions or orders, the very one you praise for morality. I think John Hartung summed it up quite nicely: The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups, and world domination. But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its objectives or even its glorification of murder, cruelty, and rape (Hartung, ms2). Many ancient works do that-The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality. Therein lies the problem. The Bible is sold, and bought, as a guide to how people should live their lives. And it is, by far, the world's all-time best seller. [1] > "Then again Jesus is tortured in the bible, that does not mean that the bible and Christianity support torture." No. But within your holy texts, women are offered up as bargaining chips in a game to save men from being sodomized. It is considered noble to save the men by giving virgins to the men townsfolk. And regarding torture, here's a passage from Revelations: "He who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I [Jesus] will give him power over the nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father (2:26-27)…And I [John] heard the number of the sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand sealed, out of every tribe of the sons of Israel (7:2-4)…they were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those of mankind who have not the seal of God upon their foreheads; they were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them. (9:4-5)." [2] Here Jesus allows the tribes of Israel to torture the non-believers. So, it appears that even Jesus who was to be tortured, had no qualms with ordering such an action onto others. > "You stated rape as being in the bible and stating that rape is not part of a good life. If you were to ever to go as far as to read the ten commandments or a christian morality book, you would know that Christianity strictly condemns rape, and that those who participate in such an action are punished with the harshest punishment in christianity, which is hell." If the Ten Commandments condemns rape, then why is rape used as a tool in the Bible? Whether is be in Deuteronomy, Judges, Zachariah or Samuel, rape is condoned. Surely there would be consistency within society if God claimed rape to be immoral and punished those who committed the act. And whether it is condoned in current Christian morality books is irrelevant. I'm showing the fallacy in what you claimed by using the Bible and how the passages are used to affect society. > "Aside from me explaining and responding to a certain example, this part of your argument is insignificant, because the old testament is not meant to be interpreted literally. Luckily I have been examining the messages of the text. But there's really no positive spin for misogynistic behavior, rape, or genocide. "> As you stated, you believe that Jesus only commands us to love Christians. Read the ten commandments and you will see that we are meant to love all and not do anything harmful to anyone, no matter what they are. Just because John Hartung interprets something one way, does not mean it is true. Personally, I would rather listen to how the catholic church interprets what Jesus says. I'd say that's a little more reliable source than some biased man arguing against Christianity." The Catholic Church is your unbiased source? Please. Hartung is actually Catholic so, if you had actually read my links, you would have known that he supports the Bible and Jesus. He is a widely respected Anthropologist who has centered his research on the in-group hostility of Jesus's actions and followers towards out-groups. Unless you have proof that Jesus wanted us to love ALL, this point remains unchallenged. Hartung has significant proof pointing out that during the time Jesus (supposedly) was alive, there was a group mentality where the Jews were the faithful, God-loving people and the rest were heathens. And to love a heathen was unheard of. [3] > "Homosexuality is not immoral. Certain people may be chemically born with a desire toward the other sex. Therefore they are not at fault. I completely disagree with that evangelist. You can't be blamed for something you can't help. It is the homosexual acts that become immoral, because they do not subscribe to the qualities required for good holy sex." 'Good Holy Sex'? I understand that the Church doesn't see homosexuals as depraved but their actions are morally depraved. However, how does anal sex become immoral? How is that a "good basis" for morality? This continues to enforce discrimination while aiding ignorance and spite between the Catholics and homosexuals. If Catholics argue that they want a "love all" society which is cohesive, than it would be expedient to retract their hateful position against homosexual behavior. > "About atheists not.... someone who considers themselves an atheist" So, Christianity is inherently better because it offers a reward which then motivates someone to do good? So, you won't be good for the sake of being good? Isn't THAT the basis of moral behavior? And if so, then the atheist is the one who is acting morally. For an atheist to act morally good, they do so out of goodwill for other humankind not out of fear of a God or to suck-up. And even if Christianity has a moral basis through the Ten Commandments, it does not inherently cause someone to be good. I direct your attention to this: http://markhumphrys.com... Here is a historical list of the killings in Christianity's name. Now, how is THAT moral? > "A God must exist." There MUST be something greater that caused us? How so? One word: Evolution. This line of questioning however is too complicated for being in this particular debate and, in the future, feel free to challenge me to a debate about God's existence. But in this particular debate, we are debating whether Christianity is greater than Atheism and the proof of God is not important for your assertion. Truly, I would need about double the space just to answer this one paragraph. > "It us greater to exist than to not exist, therefor god must exist." Non-sequitur. SOURCES: [1] http://www.lrainc.com... [2] http://www.biblegateway.com...