Is being religious harmless?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Now you're just lying.

The feeling's mutual. GFYS.

Avoiding the questions?

And, for your information, whilst I occassionally point out something that Dawkins or another commentator has said, some of which I think are excellent points, I do not base entire arguments on it. I do not quote entire paragraphs of his work, as others here tend to do with the bible. I do rarely quote, or use any arguments that are specifically Dawkins own. But hey, you know better, right?

[edit; by the way, the profanity, even a profane abbreviation, really just shows you've lost control.]

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you know the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery? It sheds light on the difference between the Old & New Testaments.
Yes I know the story. Jesus did not say it was immoral. He recognized the fact that his preaching conflicted with Jewish laws which he claimed to uphold and which everybody believed came from God. Instead of being honest ...[text shortened]... ion which you cant change so you make another law that guarantees pardons for all death row inmates.

An excellent point.

If I may make clear, I have never taken the line that Christians currently implement said penalty (although a minority surely would, given the chance), but that it exists as a stated punishment within the central text, supposedly derived from God either directly or through one of his prophets. Irrespective of the Vatican's position, or the reality on the ground, the bible clearly and unequivocally states that the perperators of certain types of sin should be put to death.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But you point out that literalism is counting that the [b]events actually happenned, as described.

Neither me not Twhitehead are arguing that at all. We are arguing the point that the laws are, in places, abhorrent.

Was God the author of those laws (including through a prophet)?[/b]

It's painfully obvious that you didn't read the post you're quoting.