Gwazi Magnum

Getting Sex vs. Getting a Relationship

I have limited experience in terms of relationships (as in, not a large sample size) so I'm not really sure how much weight my words gives here. But I'll answer as well as I can.

I think it's easier for women to get sex atm just looking at our culture and how people generally behave. If a guy goes up asking random girls for sex he's usually called a pig and avoided. If a woman goes up asking random guys for sex, most of them will say yes without hesitation.

As for relationships? I'd have to also say women, mainly for two reasons.

1) As highlighted above, most guys jump at the chance of sex. Many may also agree to a relationship in the hopes of sex.

2) Culturally, men are expected to pull most of the weight and 'be the man' in terms of asking a girl out, providing a good date etc.
Unless if there's a specific guy the girl want's who isn't bothering to ask her, getting into a relationship for a girl is basically as easy as waiting for a boy to make a move.
If you're a guy, there's a chance the girl will make the first move (Like both my mine ended up getting started), but it's not going to happen as often.

Is it easier to get a romantic relationship or friends with benefits?
I don't think there's a clear answer here, this largely depends on the area you live in and the people you interact with.
You could be around mostly people who save sex for people they love, or mostly around people just treat sex as a pleasure thing.

As for which is easier to maintain? I'd say friend's with benefits.
Relationships require a lot of time invested in the other person, to be supporting one another, emotionally available, etc.
Friends with benefits, all you really need to do is have both people wanting sex and you're good.
Granted friends with benefit's can be more complex than that, but it doesn't need to be complex at all in order to count as friends with benefits.

Elder Scrolls Online beta weekend

I've played it for a few hours so far after getting a spare Beta Key off a friend.

There's a few issues I have with it, some of which were already highlighted.

1. Classes
Why the hell are there classes? Elder Scrolls has always been a level up where you want and be what you want sort of deal. Why in the world is that whole thing shot in the foot now? The best I can think of is balance reasons, but it loses a ton of Elder Scrolls feel when you remove that option.

2. Horrible Loot
The loot for basically every enemy is one single god damn coin... -.-
The loot for most box's and chest's is slightly more coin, and then minor materials for making soup's and potions.
Barely interesting gear. It's the only MMO I have actually had to go to a weapons Merchant and buy a weapon because none of the monster drops gave my anything better.

-Exception: Old Republic and Comendations, but that's a rare/limited currency that is essentially "Pick your rare item" so it works.

3. Way too many other's running around.

I get it in a field/open map, it's an MMO.
But when I go into a dungeon and a cave to do a quest, it barely feels like an Elder Scrolls seeing 50+ others running around doing the same shit and killing all the monsters.

4. Limited Combat
As mentioned before, it has 1st person like TES series (which is nice), but it's basically just a click until the enemy dies. With a very limited amount of abilities or powers to use in the hotkey... even if you're a mage. -.-

5. Lack of exploration.
You have this map area/locations you can explore within, But you can cover the whole thing within a hour (2 at most) with almost no secret's to uncover.
And you can't move on until you do the main story.

Can't even back track to an earlier area if you want to do a missed quest or simply get a change of scenery.

---

Overall, I rate it as a pretty low MMO. It's better than runescape and any of those other MMO's you only hear of from the kind of ad's you use adblock to get rid of.
But any decently famous MMO (Planetside 2, Guild Wars 2, Old Republic, World of Warcraft, Phantasy Star Online) I would rank as far better MMO's.

Westboro Baptist Church

No one's replied to my points anymore :P

So I'm just curious as to if that means people simply agree now with what I've been saying, or if they disagree and are just deciding not to reply.

Westboro Baptist Church

Also as long as evolution is being discussed.

Here is a perfect example of how evolution has no set goal, has no master plan or intelligence and does have hiccups and mistakes.

Westboro Baptist Church

Ichthys said I see a lot of biblical referencing in this debate with people recounting stories/events in the Bible to prove if something is right or wrong. This leads to the following questions: If something is mentioned in the BIble, does that directly mean it is acceptable or unacceptable, considering some of these stories/events never actually comment on whether the act was good/bad? In other words, is it merely a historical event and just that or is it an example of what is/isn't allowable? Also something to consider is who committed the acts in each situation: was the person who did such things, like rape, supposed to be someone good or bad? To put it in biblical terms, does that fact that either a "saved" or "unsaved" person committed the act change anything?

Depend's on what you consider acceptable.
There some people who would respond "It's the word of God, of course it's acceptable!", and others who may look at it and go "I don't think this is acceptable".

Also all the cases involving acts such as rape, slavery, homophobia so far have all been stuff either God directly told his followers to do, or were something his followers did on Gods behalf (and God did nothing to stop it, or punish said followers after. Meaning he approved of it or simply didn't care) outside of the one case with the daughters and their dad, which seemed more of a historical telling.

So considering that it was Gods followers doing these things with orders, blessings or simply no consequence it's safe to say that the Bible allows you to commit these acts. So from a 100% Christian/Gods Word point of view, those are acceptable acts.

From another's perspective?
I really hope I don't need to say.

Ichthys said I see that the statement that If someone acts a certain way, then it must mean that they thought it first. Therefore, thinking and doing are the same thing. ~~~ That said, does thinking one thing really equate to enacting that behavior? If someone has the thought of killing someone but never acts on it, are they still a murderer? What is murder without an actual, well, murder?

This is a philosophical question, therefore no easy answer generally.

I would personally rule no, everyone has dark thoughts at times. That doesn't mean we actually go ahead and commit them or that we should now be treated the same. I mean we've all probably that time where someone was so much on your nerves that you think to yourself "I could kill you right now", or look at something we really wanted and thought "I wish I could take that...", but we don't actually do it.

There's actually a theory based on this called the Iceberg Theory (It does have some other names too. Iceberg is a popular one though), where it describes three parts of your mind. The ID, the Ego and the Super Ego.

Your ID is your basic wants and desires. It's the side of your mind that goes "I want to take that, I want this. We should punch this annoying jerk square in the Jaw".
Your Ego is your rational side, it evaluates your surroundings and recognizes complication's and issues such as "If I took this, the alarm would go off. If I punch this guy in the Jaw, he'll break my spine".
Your Super Ego is your balancing factor and moral factor (It's been taught to me by several different teachers in school. Each described it a bit differently). It basically tries to satisfy your ID while listening to the Ego and also uses factors like "This is wrong, I shouldn't do this".

Ichthys said Not to mention, some Psychologists have theorized that personality can actually be changed under the right circumstances (source: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-18/henry-kellerman-personality-how-it-forms; I suggest listening to the whole podcast), so if this theory is true, then is sexual orientation, if taken as a facet of personality, a valid argument against what a person is vs what they do? Does someone's mere actions dictate who they are as a whole, is it their thoughts only, is it both thought and behavior or is there more involved, especially if personality (which is defined as the pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving by the APA) can, in fact, be changed? To put it another way, if personality can change and sexual orientation is a part of personality, can the orientation be changed or not? Is it ultimately a choice? And if it is a choice, is that enough to say

That link only leads to a 200 page long paper from what I could find.
If there is a podcast there I didn't see it. :(

Hypothetically, if Orientation was a personality aspect then yes it could be changed, like any other personality aspect.

However, that's not the case (Cntrl F "Gene" if you want to find the piece on it quickly).

So to answer the rest anyways, since it can still apply to other things.
I'm a big supporter of the saying "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me".
This could easily be wrong mind you, I don't claim to be an expert on the thoughts vs actions topic.

Basically, I find that deep down you may want to be someone else. Or wish you had another characteristic.
Like for example with myself, I wish I was able to be more clear, concise and affirmative in my dialog in person.
I get quiet and/or miss-word what I mean to say quite commonly.
But I'm not, so as much as I think to myself that I may be this way, or wish I could be, it's not going to make it true.

Could it change for me? Yes, but it would take a lot of practice, effort and some luck to pull off.
For another example.

Let's say you find a child outside in the snow, he's freezing and doesn't have a coat on while waiting for the bus (It's going to be a while). But you have a perfectly good coat on you, what do you do?

Almost all people here would want to say "I'd take my coat off and put in on the child", but not all the people who say that they would will actually end up doing it if in that situation. Those who actually do the action of giving the coat to the child will be people demonstrating a higher capability to be kind and selfless towards others than those who may want to help, but keep their coat on themselves cause they would get cold otherwise.

Or maybe an example that may be a bit harder to make.
You're loved one or a close friend/family member is about to die, and not a painless death either.
Their death will be decently long and painful, and let's say hypothetically the one way to stop it is for you to take their place, will you?
Whatever happens I think we can all agree, we will recognize and see those who do make the switch as kinder and braver people than those who let the loved one die so they themselves don't have to.

So basically TLDR: Being Homosexual is genetic, so it's not something they could choose on.
But for the question of is it just thought, just action or both that makes someone?
I rule it's far more based on action that it is based on thought.

Ichthys said On the topic of biblical theology and all that: First off, I notice most scriptural references are from the Old Testament, but wasn't some of the Old Testament, in terms of some of the rules in it, made null because of Jesus Christ? If this is true, what parts of it are still applicable and which ones are void?

It's iffy, in the Bible Jesus mention's new rules and laws to lead the people with.
But it's not fully clear in a 100% precise manner if that means ditching the Old Testament or not.
That it does seems to be a popular belief, and honestly I can't blame them. Who wants to relate to a Religion today that supports rape, slavery, sexism etc?

It's like one of those 5 bible passages listed above about where the Bible supports rape where I had to rule "It could be suggesting it, but with the way it's worded it's difficult to tell for sure". The stuff about forgetting the Old Testament seems the same way.

Now, as to what is still applicable and what is not?
With it being unclear, it could go either way.

And with all the different denominations of Christianity it is certainly possible for some to claim that the Old Testament still applies, and for others to claim it doesn't.
But this just get's complicated (especially when a debate pops up against a non-Christian) cause technically speaking the Bible is Christianity. It's where all the religions laws and rules come from, it is their Gods word. If they are ignoring it, what exactly is there left to be calling them a Christian?

And with the matter that the Old Testament still being in effect or not, not being 100% clear can cause both sides of it to be accused of "You're ignoring the Bible, how are you a Christian?".

So Long story short, it's hard to say.
But what I can say, you would have to accept all of the Old Testament, or none of it.

Cause either Jesus re-wrote it so it's none of it is relevant, or he didn't and it's still in effect.
To only take the Old Testament parts you want... it's cherry picking.
And the second you start to decide what parts of your religion you want to believe in or follow, is when you need to look at it again and ask yourself "Is this still Christianity? Or what I want it to be?".

Ichthys said As there are many Judeo-Christian denominations, doesn't the fact that there are so many different beliefs under the same religion make the religion unreliable? What makes one different from another? Is it the same God? The same religion? And related to this topic, what is the point of using different translations? If the BIble is supposed to be eternal and "God's word", then does believing in solely one translation prove that the previous claim is false? What makes on translation correct and not another? Are they all correct?

Thunderf00t made a very good video about this. Skip to 5:30 to get to the main point on this topic.

Essentially if they were meant to be the same thing in agreement they wouldn't be separate denominations to begin with.
Also Christianity wasn't the first or original Religion.

It came from other religions that were far older than it.
So for all intents and purposes. the whole of Christianity is one giant denomination of another Religion.
A denomination that happens to have many denominations within it as well (Denomception huh? :P).

Different Translations exist for different reasoning. But generally it amounts to, people didn't like the way Christianity was going. May it be a belief disagreement, not liking a certain rule, wanting a certain rule, adding of quotes, removing of quotes, discovery of removed quotes and putting them back in, translation error's etc. So people argue over which is correct, sometimes to the point where if you don't do it in their translation they discount your entire point.

Kind of like how Shy responded to quotes showing Christianity as Homophobic and claiming it to be false/bad evidence because it wasn't of the Translation that Shy personally chooses to follow.

Now as to which is actually correct? First we need to be under the assumption that Christianity is the right religion, and not one of the many others in the world, or that no religion is in fact correct.
Being atheist, my stance is none of them are correct. All have shown conflicts and none of shown proper evidence to give any good reason to follow it.

But for the hypothetical question, let's assume that Christianity somehow was the true Religion. There's still the matter of translation, and honestly I've never seen a single argument proving one better than another that wasn't basically them having faith, or God saying so. So sadly, they're all at one giant stalemate. They'd need historical proof or Gods divine intervention to establish one as true.

I think the safest assumption to be made in this hypothetical though would be that none of them are 100% correct. All got pieces of it right, but never the whole picture and it would have to be a matter if fitting all the right pieces back together again.

Ichthys said Since, according to the fundamental principles of evolution, the primary goal of any living species is to pass on the best genes for survival and reproduce (survival of the fittest and all that), and since Homosexuality is, in essence, a "mutation" (if it even is a mutation) that works against survival of the fittest, is that enough ground to discriminate against them from a strictly scientific perspective? What about from a moral one? In other words, can the argument be made that if Homosexuality is not compliant to evolution, it a deterrent to the advancement of the human race?

To which I have to ask in response "If we found proof that one race was better at surviving than another, would it warrant discrimination against the others?".
We know there are already some genetic differences between races of humans, differences which would play a role in surviving in the wild.

Plus let's consider the fact we are also in modern day society, would any of these even be relevant for today?
And also let's say hypothetically somehow all of humanity became homosexual. Do you think they would allow for there to simply be no kids and for the human race to go extinct?

Probably not, they would organize and breed for the sake of survival. Homosexuality doesn't make you unable to have children, it just makes it so you may be attracted to certain individuals who you may not be able to make children with.

Lastly as far as Homosexuality and Evolution is concerned.

Richard Dawkins gives some good points on how the Gay gene could of been passed during the generations.

Hey check out this forum!

Eh, I don't like it.

Seems too similar to this site.

. . .

THE HORROR!!!

Westboro Baptist Church

ActRaiserTheReturned said I don't agree about the Bible supporting rape.

It's not a matter you can choose to agree on.
It's written in the Bible, it's there.
The Bible supporting rape is fact.

You can choose not to believe in it.
But that won't change the fact it's there, no amount of disagreeing will change that.

Shy said
-Lots of Bible analysis-

Might as well respond to each of these.

Deuteronomy 22:25-28 = True, this was a search engine result of simply showing any quote involving rape.
The point of the link was to highlight those links later on that do support it though.

I'll just mark future one's that this case happens to with "Search result".

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 = I'll grant, the wording here of "Lay Hold on her" isn't clear in if it's rape, or consensual. Though the fact it also leads to forced marriage and paying the father leans it in the direction of rape. Not overly though cause both forced marriages and paying the father after marriage are common practices today even when rape is never involved.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 = And so was the victim.

Zechariah 14:1-2 = Agreed here, it is clearly supporting rape.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 = It's forced sex and marriage after she was imprisoned by them and had her parents killed. It's rape.

Leviticus 18:19-23 = Search Engine (Though oddly enough, it is another point to showing the Bible is Homophobic)

Galatians 5:19-21 = Search Engine

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 = Search Engine

Judges 5:30 = Gives men damsels to be taken as spoils. Most likely rape, but Jorick is right in terms of being a bit tenous.
It's defelently in support of kidnapping however and treating women as property, which rape comes hand in hand with many times.

Numbers 31:7-18 = Same case as the last one.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 = Same thing again.

Leviticus 20:10-16 = Search Engine, though yet again one that supports the Bible in being Homophobic.

Exodus 21:7 = Search Engine, seems more of a case of sexism than anything else.

Genesis 19:1-38 = Two different parts here that rape seems to be relevant in.
In the hostage part, he was willingly giving his wife and daughters away for safety.
No mention of them consenting, just seems to be Lot making the choice himself.
That's basically the woman being forced into ownership (and most likely sex) with the invaders.
But sense having sex is not outright said, it doesn't work 100%.

It's just knowing humans, their nature and our history there's very little reason to give woman away like that if not to be raped.

The second part where rape seems relevant seems to be the daughter's raping their Dad.
They made him drunk on wine, and slept with him. Which being coerced/unconseual sex is rape.
However, this case seems more as a recanting of something that did happen, rather than something that the Bible outright supports.

*Skipped Quotes*

Judges 21:10-24 = First men pillaged a town, took 400 women as captives to claim as wives.
Forced marriage and most likely forced sex/rape.

The bigger part here is later, where they're isn't enough women for all the men. So the remaining ones are told to wait in the bushes to ambush and take women forcefully as wives of their own.
This one screams every alarm for rape without outright saying the women were raped.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 = Search Engine

Leviticus 20:1-27 = Search Engine/Longer version of something above.

Judges 19:1-30 = Specifcally 24-25. He gave his Concubine to some men and they quote "so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go".

Then disgustingly enough, at 29 she get's cut up into 12 pieces and they get sent to different parts of Egypt.
Though the later part is just revolting, the earlier part is clear rape.

---

So an overall count gives us:

-Search Engine Glitches: 8
-Suggested but not Confirmed Rape: 5 (Note: This one includes the confirmed rape with the Dad. Listed here though since it seems more history recall than wanted by God, plus it's the same quote involving giving the daughters away to invaders).
-Confirmed Rape: 4
-Other Barbaric Things, but not Rape: 1

So that list didn't seem the most efficient, had it's hiccups. But there were a number of quotes that supported the point.
I'll note next time to grab the individual quotes rather than post the page overall. My apology for that, I figured it'd save stress and effort of finding them on your part by simply giving the link to the one page.

Otherwise, we got 4 cases of confirmed rape. Only one was needed to prove the Bible supports Rape.
At least if you go by the "The Bible is God's word, to reject any of his word is blasphemy" approach.

And 5 other cases strongly suggesting rape on top of that, a few are only not listed as confirmed rape if for the sake being objective.
But in most society and situations it is very safe to assume there was rape there, and God would of allowed/supported it.

Even with the Spoils of War argument being common practice.
This is very true, but that doesn't defend the act of rape in the first place. Rape is rape.
At the same time, it doesn't change the fact that this being the Bible would of been act's God would of had or at least allowed his followers to do.

So to address the last comment here:

Shy said
Again, stop just pulling quotes out without analyzing them.

The first time it's a case of not being a bible you yourself follow.
There are many bibles under Christianity, just because it's not your version specifically doesn't make my past argument or references invalid at all.
If that comment was directed at you specifically, and then you responded saying "Sorry, that's not my Bible, this is my Bible" then it'd be valid to tell me to try again.

But the first time was not directed at you specifically, so it did not need to tailor to the specific Bible you choose to go by.

As for this case, like said above. I was sending one link for convenience on both ends.
I've noted to not do this next time, and simply pull the individual quotes out of it. Even if it causes a bigger time to look over and a more cluttered post.
Plus, it had 4 quotes directly confirming and another 5 that strongly suggest it.

So it was hardly far off or unanalyzed.

Jorick said
This seems like a fun thread.

It is :P

*Also to note ahead of time: I agree 100% with what you said both to me and the others here.

Jorick said Woah woah woah, hold on there. Are you forgetting the foundational assumptions upon which science is built? Saying no assumptions are made is simply and objectively wrong. I'll list these assumptions so you can see what I mean.

1 - The universe is a real physical place. Pure objective no assumptions science only gets us as far as cogito ergo sum. Everything past that is an assumption.

2 - Human senses and tools to enhance them are reliable. We cannot know for absolute certainty that our senses are accurate, and we happen to know there are things we cannot naturally perceive (spectrum of light for instance), so we are assuming that we can actually gather objective data.

3 - Through observation and experimentation, we can understand and make predictions about the world around us. This is a combo of the above and the assumption that cause and effect is a real thing and that it's reliable and predictable with enough knowledge.

Without making those core assumptions, we cannot have science. We cannot know them to be true with objective certainty, thus they are assumptions. These assumptions being made are part of the root of why science is said to never be 100% objectively accurate: it's always possible that one of those core assumptions is false, thus invalidating everything we know as science.

It's easy to forget these are assumptions because we humans constantly make them in day to day life, but they are indeed assumptions. Just keep that in mind next time you want to say how science is better than religion due to supposed objectivity. I happen to agree that science is preferable due to its methodology, and I have many issues with religion and its methodology, but you've got to have intellectual integrity with this stuff and admit the failings of your preferred system if you wish to have a stable foundation upon which to build your arguments.

This is a good point that I had missed/not considered at all.
It is easy to forget that science is based on some assumptions such as we are observing all we need to.

So I will take back the science makes no assumptions argument.
But I will still stand by that it relies on proof and evidence, and adapts when proven wrong rather than argue it or label it as heresy.

Jorick said As a non-religious person, I can provide an answer to this that's rooted in science.

The basic biological imperative of all living things is to reproduce and pass on genetic material. This is the sole purpose of the existence of any living thing, the only purpose in life one can really derive from a purely scientific perspective, and this purpose is strongly enforced by things like the sex drive in humans and the migration of various animals to mating grounds during certain seasons. Homosexuality goes counter to this biological imperative because it cannot produce offspring, thus it is bad. If you want to go further with it, you can even say it's a non-beneficial mutation, just as would be a mutation that causes sterility, both being non-beneficial for the same reason.

Obviously (or I hope it's obvious, at least) this isn't a good justification for discrimination and whatnot. Our population numbers and technological advancements mean that some people not mating and producing offspring doesn't truly do any harm to the species. Someone else being homosexual doesn't do you any harm, so there's no point in giving a shit about it on a social or moral level. From the pure biological perspective it's bad, but fuck it, not really relevant to humans in this day and age.

Good point, though when I asked that question I was already aware of this potential answer.

I just figured it'd be better to let him list it as one before I replied.
It'd be pretty one sided if I debunked all the possible defenses he could of had before he even had a chance to reply.

But since you now brought it up, I'll give the response to it.
You've already given half of it, we're at a day and age it's not going to harm us anymore.
The other half is, we're already in an age where Gay Marriages and Legal Abortions are on the rise and we still have many children in orphanages without a family to support them.
We're already facing an abundance/over-population of children.

If anything more Gay Marriages means there are more children who will have a loving family, a home and a healthy upbringing.

Also if they truly wanted a biological child of their own, there are other means.
Surrogate mother/Sperm donor, simply having sex with another person for the purpose of a child (Not too common, but it happens).

Westboro Baptist Church

Just to state now, I logging off after I make this post.

Shy said
A sexual act is usually in reference to things such as lustful kissing (virtually eating each other's faces off), sexual intercourse (regular or anal), as well as oral and "heavy petting." If it is anything along those lines then it is most likely considered a sexual act that should not be engaged in outside of marriage.I'll come back to the marriage thing in a minute.

Ok, glad we had that clarified in advance though.
Means less confusion later on.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Okay well allegedly, homosexuality is far more dangerous as far as STD's go than heterosexuality. But as for attraction, it's not a sin to just be attracted to the same sex. It is, however, a sin to have lustful attraction, filling your head with pornographic thoughts (Just like heterosexuality), etcetera. But I'll note, I'm not talking about Ex-Gay Therapy, necessarily, that is, in regards to Jesus changing a sinner. I think that the Ex-Gay type of ministry has it's place, but I"m more or less saying that God can do anything if he wanted. If he wanted to change us into a cat, he could. If he wanted to change us from a gay person to a straight person, he could. But the Bible specifically states that as far as our sin nature goes, God's will is to do anything to change us from our sinful state to a place that's closer to God. It doesn't matter how intrinsic to someone's being it is. So even when it comes to your sexuality, God, can change you.

I knew you meant in terms of God Healing, no worries there.

Also, I should probably ask now.
Do you even feel like continuing this? We seem to be circular.

mdk said whoa whoah whoah. Not rape. Let's be firm on that point. Slavery existed, yes, as it did in every society (the Hebrew people were themselves slaves, and descendants of slaves, and found themselves enslaved periodically throughout the course of the scripture). Slaves of Israel were treated pretty well, including codified release and freedom (you've probably heard of the 'year of jubilee' if you've read up on the subject), and the poor (for instance, recently-freed slaves) were provided for under Abrahamic law (research 'gleaning' if you're interested). As for the sexism, well, that's a debate. Like I said before, we've been changing and evolving and growing ever since we were made, and the circumstances have changed. Fortunately the 'New Covenant' you read about is not like the old; it's not 'follow these rules and you will be pure,' it's 'follow Jesus and you will be forgiven.'

Bible supporting Rape

Not trying to claim you're like this in the slightest just to clarify.
But when it's claim the Bible doesn't have ______ when it does, I have a tendency to point out where it actually does.

mdk said
Is that your 'scientific' opinion? Have you made no assumptions, have you adapted your theories, have you abandoned your pre-existing claims?

I've adapted and changed claims before, such as when I left Christianity.
As for assumptions, I would assume you mean "The Bible = Christianity" claim.
But I just don't see anything it could be based on if not the Bible, there's nothing else really supporting it.

mdk said I never said 'THE BIBLE ISN'T RELEVANT TO THE RELIGION.' In fact I gave you a specific verse quite to the contrary. So you can see why I'm a bit flippant on that last quote, and on this one -- if you're claiming (as you should) that science and reason are the only ways to approach the truth then why, with Christianity, do you instead rely on your prejudice (and your google, if you're holding to the stereotype)? Just as experiments need to be done under control, with honest and scrupulous observation, so must the Bible be read in good faith. Where we come from is always going to be an aspect of where we are. Hopefully I've cleared up the misunderstanding, and no harm done. I met a Christian once who argued that rock and roll was satan worship (OKAY, MORE THAN ONCE). We've got some loonies, that's for damn sure. Anyway being open is cool, I'll tell you what I can, we can talk at length and have fun. .

Sorry then. I was more just trying to cover possible claims or responses I've heard before in advance in an attempt to spare us a few posts.

With Christianity it's a matter of it's a claim of something existing (God) which needs evidence to prove itself.
Science always gives proof it's claims, but Christianity hasn't given the proof needed for God.

As for read it in Good faith, that still won't change the fact the Bible may have a confliction, or support horrible crimes being committed.

And there is no harm done, I'm just making my stance on the issue currently clear ahead of time.