[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]The whole point of the video is that Hitler lied. Nazis were un-Christian, and even if you're saying that you don't believe they were Christian, you compared them to Nazis in the first place.There is no coherent way to equate the two.[/quote]

Like I said, I never took part in the whole "was Hitler a Christian" part.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]Christianity does not produce mad men and lunatics. Lunatics and mad men produce corruptions of Christianity.[/quote]

People would be violent without Religion, this much is true. We are a naturally violent species.
But Religion is what people used to justify being violent, it was a tool, a weapon and excuse for such violent acts to take place.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]Furthermore, the evil, despicable acts attributed to the Bible are either always because of some form of ignorance coming from the critic, or dishonesty.[/quote]

Or maybe the book really does support these despicable acts... which we have referenced and shown you in the Bible many times now.

Like honestly, this isn't a debatable topic. The Bible is a violent book that allows/accepts violent acts. 
It says this constantly.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]I like you enough to know that even though you are intelligent, you aren't dishonest either. You have a form of ignorance that's not from a lack of brain power or dishonesty, but it's still ignorance.[/quote]

No, it's just me understanding basic English and that "Stoning your child" or "Raping women" means "Stoning your child and raping women" and not something like "God was kind and only allows for good".

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]when these critics don't listen to what Christians, or even secularists are even saying, and instead just gloss over what they say, censor them, if not in deed then at least in their attitudes.[/quote]

No, we're listening to you. We're just not agreeing with you, there's a difference.

If you want to say "God says X and does Y" but then we look at the Bible/Gods words and it in fact says "God says N and does M" we're going to by what your God is saying.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]The definition of bigotry is refusing to learn when you are wrong, or at least refusing to accept you're wrong so that you can learn.[/quote]

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

It seems to mean someone who is hateful or un-accepting of others, not someone who doesn't to admit when they're wrong.
However, regardless of that me and Brovo had been the only one's referencing/quoting your God. You've been the ones to ignore your own God's words and substitute it for other things.

So obviously I'm not going to say I'm in the wrong if even your own God disagrees with you.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]The atrocities which were committed in the OT, and even the atrocities which are only claimed yet not present in the OT, are in the past, where they belong, and stay there.[/quote]

It's all still there though, in the Bible. As God's word, something which he at least at some point supported, allowed and accepted among his followers.
But then we still get to the fact that the Bible never dismissed these as simply OT, as far as God and the Bible is concerned the OT is still to be listened to.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]Not only that, but the Bible is written for whomever wants to read it, in Greek, Hebrew, and just plain English.[/quote]

Like all pieces of literature, they are made for a specific audience.
But that does not change the contents inside of it.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]It is very plain that the Bible wants us to live in moral ways that are very pleasant, produce good Samaritan neighbors, and peaceful men and women who are honorable and charitable, and seek the exhortation of others and not just themselves.[/quote]

Any single Bible quote referenced in this entire debate disagree's with this statement entirely.

[quote=The Nexerus]Nothing that occurred before the birth of Christ could possibly be construed as the teachings of Christianity. Mosaic Law, or the "rules of the times" as you call it, is not a Christian principle. It has been universally agreed not to be since the Council of Jerusalem. You're confusing Christianity with Jewish Christianity, which is just ordinary orthodox Judaism but with the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Jewish Christians are Christians, but Christians do not have to be Jews (i.e. do not have to follow Mosaic Law). Councils and ecumenical conferences succeeding the Council of Jerusalem made this disparity even wider, further differentiating Christianity as a distinct faith rather than a branch of Judaism, and cementing the distinction between Christian Law and Jewish Law.What you're arguing is about 1,960 years out of date. The Old Testament is context, not law. Christianity is about the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ ARE the teachings of God, as per the principle of hypostasis.[/quote]

But are they not all teachings of the same God? OT and Jesus's words alike? Same mouth, same source, same book.
If OT was honestly meant to be something separate and not part of Christianity why is it even still part of the Bible?
If it truly was not part of Christianity, what point does it have in the book that is meant to be the Religion of Christianity?

If they were simply Jewish teachings should they not be separate and not in the same book? And not be counted as Gods words?