Jesus commands to kill little children.

I asked 4 questions which you failed to properly address. I am not sure why since each one pertained to your original post. But you do throw in many red herrings in order to dismiss or have the readers overlook what is actually being asked. If each one is not a red herring please do enlighten me or at least engage on why you think each question is irrelevant to you. A) I did not question or implied that the Old Testament or the New Testament is inerrant or even inspired by a god. Red herring #1 – "The bible is said to be inspired by perfection. Perfection does not say that s**t." The actual question is "Do you read newspapers, scientific articles, books, or for that matter would you read the SATs questions in this way?" But from what you stated ("I have read all around the chapter and that fact is.") it seems that you would read any literature in this way (question #1) and regardless of what the text actually states (regardless of fiction, mythology, or otherwise) you would only pick and chose what is "necessary" to "support" your point of view. B) I did not imply that Jesus is a historical person. Red herring#2 "Jesus was a fictional character that was not half as good as Christians today want to portray him." The actual question was "What does the entire chapter say (or at least from 1 to 20)?" You still fail to list the rest of the text and by doing so; it conveniently supports your current point. Not sure why the rest of the information is not presented. If you are correct the preceding and proceeding text should still support what you are stating, right? For a person that is a skeptic about "interpretations" ("Stop listening to your priest and read the whole bible.") You sure like to impose your "interpretation" ("Jesus clearly said that that old testament laws still apply.") instead of allowing the reader to arrive at their own. C) I have not suggested or addressing the authenticity or reliability of the gospel text, etc. Here goes red herring # 3 "You have not read enough on your own bible to even know that all the gospels are different in such a way they all portray a different Jesus. There is a nice kind Jesus and an angry Jesus. They all tell conflicting stories and details. This is not a book of divine inspiration. It is ancient rubbish." The actual question was "Was there any reason you decided to leave out the previous or following text?" I am not clear why you decided to continue to leave the complete text out as part of the set. D) You did answer question #4 (somewhat), but I am really surprised. The actual question was "Let's say you did read the entire text. Can you honestly say you used critical reading skills or at least its concepts? ..." You stated that "These are things you have been taught to excuse away all the fucked up passages in the bible." By your statement it seems that you imply that general "Critical Reading Skills" (used on the SATs, college classes, on daily newspaper reading, etc.) are based on religion. Or, that "Critical Reading" is not really necessary. I did clarify to leave religion and a god out, and to address the text as literature based on reading skills, but by your many red herrings, it looks like you are more in need of a religion, a god or a jesus to "excuse" your failure to present complete information. Again, we are not addressing "christianity", the validity of a jesus as a historic person, the gospel text as accurate, valid, or inerrant, or have I implied an interpretation of my own based on the full text. I think the questions are very clear and to divert from the actual point by throwing irrelevant information is plain injustice for me, any reader that is a serious thinker. With this said I will be glad to engage in your other implied "facts," but allow us to address this one properly. Thanks again for engaging in the conversation.