"smut for smut"

[Rucario]

Because one is human, and the other is not...?


Considering the next paragraph, this line is really lulzy, but...


Yes, the Bible is dirty. I'm sick of the "Shocking Secrets of the Catholic Church" that people dig up, and hope that the Pope will commit suicide in disbelief.

It's not happening. We proudly claim Ezekiel as well. But... Shh... Don't tell anyone, or else it might be headline news.


Yes, because being close-minded and religious is much worse than being close-minded and scientific (Yes. I just used those two together).

Or, you know, you could read a little bit, know what you're talking about, and see the Church's stance on science.

But that would mean you can no longer plead ignorance (Oh, the irony...), so... I don't recommend it. The Church is evuler than Bush.


You do realize that, in every Catholic school I've been in... We're taught that the Bible is not a historical account... right? The stories of the Old Testament are meant to be taken for the messages, not the meanings.


So... Umm... Are you saying that thousands of humans just happened to appear out of nowhere?

I'm not saying evolution is bunk (And I actually do believe in it. Yes, check that. It's actually logical), but I doubt that thousands of apes randomly made the leap into humanity at the exact same time.

Or, of course, you could just ignore the... err... *Gigglesnort* Inconvenient Truth of where all the humans came from. After all, incest is a nasty thing, and we'd hate for the earliest humans to act uncivilized...

The Bible is a document of faith, not a history book. That's what I've learned, and that's what I've been taught. Religion is faith, not proof and science.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

The Bible is a document of faith, not a history book. That's what I've learned, and that's what I've been taught. Religion is faith, not proof and science.

Agree with me more, darn you!

But, yeah. This.

 

[Yamikarasu]

I think the original topic about students trading porn for bibles is funny. Of course I would never trade in my bible, cause y'know, it was a gift... >_>

I think it's bold. I personally agree with them mostly, although I would add that no one has ever killed anyone because of what they read in a playboy magazine.

Yes, they aren't making much of a point politically that hasn't already been made, and this isn't going to do anything but piss some people off. People are offended, and rightly so, and they should just ignore it. In America you have to accept offensive things, like Glenn Beck, the KKK, these atheist students, etc.

There is a double standard with how afraid people are to offend Muslims. It shouldn't exist and I totally sympathize with Christians who think their religion is being unfairly attacked.

 

[Shiro]

Porn? Awesome.

This gave me a good laugh. However, if the intent was to make people convert into atheism, it truly is in poor taste. More than anything, it's going to offend people. Its intent may be lighthearted and fun, but it seems to further provoke the bad stereotype that many atheists get nowadays.

But it's still goddamn funny.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Don't get me wrong, though. I can laugh at this, but...

I also saw the humor in Draw Mohammad Day.

 

[Richard Lynch]

Because one is human, and the other is not...?

If by that you mean the comparison of paying for consensual sex versus using one's position to "lure" boys into molestation, then I agree with you.

Considering the next paragraph, this line is really lulzy, but...


Yes, the Bible is dirty. I'm sick of the "Shocking Secrets of the Catholic Church" that people dig up, and hope that the Pope will commit suicide in disbelief.

It's not happening. We proudly claim Ezekiel as well. But... Shh... Don't tell anyone, or else it might be headline news.

I don't want the Pope to commit suicide. Where would all my entertainment go? I think we bring these topics up (the same as these guys trading Bibles for porn) because there are a lot of people who believe the Bible is absolute purity, and should be followed verbatim, no matter what, end of story, or else go to Hell. I enjoy pointing out flaws and contradictions and deviations from what us usually taught.

Yes, because being close-minded and religious is much worse than being close-minded and scientific (Yes. I just used those two together).

Or, you know, you could read a little bit, know what you're talking about, and see the Church's stance on science.

But that would mean you can no longer plead ignorance (Oh, the irony...), so... I don't recommend it. The Church is evuler than Bush.

Actually, I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and wanted to be a priest for quite a while. Until I reached the age of reason.

Again, this differs much depending on the individual. I have met religious folk who think we scientists are the ultimate sinners, and have met other religious folk who ARE scientists. Hell, even Pope John Paul II came out and said that the jury is out on evolution. But there are plenty who don't. When it comes to science, I find it's not always about people disagreeing with our (pretty much proven) theories, but that they don't know enough about them to make up their own mind. They just see that it deviates from the Bible, and automatically push it out of sight.

You do realize that, in every Catholic school I've been in... We're taught that the Bible is not a historical account... right? The stories of the Old Testament are meant to be taken for the messages, not the meanings.

You are a minority then, let me tell you. A majority of the people I ask about this actually believe there was a talking snake. I think that says enough.

To go slightly off-topic for a moment, let me ask you this: If you were taught, and believe that the Old Testament is merely a series of parables, then why couldn't it be true of the New Testament also? Could it be that the whole Jesus story is, in fact, one large parables built by smaller ones? Hmmm...

So... Umm... Are you saying that thousands of humans just happened to appear out of nowhere?

Nope. That's what the creationists say!

I'm not saying evolution is bunk (And I actually do believe in it. Yes, check that. It's actually logical), but I doubt that thousands of apes randomly made the leap into humanity at the exact same time.

Understand we're dealing with millions upon billions of years. In that sense, it wasn't at the same time. There was a genetic defect that happened to be beneficial to survival, and was progressively passed on, and thus eventually the ones who did not have it died off. Again, it wasn't overnight. Let's leave that to the creationists.

Or, of course, you could just ignore the... err... *Gigglesnort* Inconvenient Truth of where all the humans came from. After all, incest is a nasty thing, and we'd hate for the earliest humans to act uncivilized...

Sure, we could ignore it. But what a sad world it would be if people all of a sudden didn't care about the beauty of it. It's the curiosity that drives us, to understand. The job of we scientists is pretty simple: Ask why. Something happens... why? We are a certain way... why? Look at how the planets move... why?

Of course, our second job is applying that why. It's pretty hard to apply "Because God wills it", or whathaveyou.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Mobile device, so no quotes for you.

However, I'm not a Creationist. Did God create the world? Yes.

In seven days? No.

I'm a Conservative Catholic. If this is to continue, then get your denominations straight (Yes, you were a Roman Catholic. That's like claiming to be a Libertarian. There are too many variations).

Also... How do I know Jesus existed?

1. Let me rephrase... Much of the Old Testament is dominated by symbolism. There actually was an Israel, after all.

2. Historical records match the Bible (oar it wuz teh Alumenatee). Jesus and the Apostles existed, according to recovered Roman records. There is a 2000-year old Middle Eastern man in a tomb under Rome, marked Petros.

Or, to flip it, prove that Louis XIV existed.

Pictures, records, sources...

Or would you like a photograph?

3. I'm the moron that thinks blood erupting from bread... Or Scrolls in caves... Or the Fatima miracle...

I'm the idiot that can't comprehend the science behind those.

Have I ever seen them with my own eyes? No.

Therefore, they don't exist. And neither does Asia.

How many Christian theocracies are there in the world today?

No, Scientologyland doesn't count.

And no, 1600s Boston isn't valid either.

As someone on Teh Internetz once said,

"Shooting up a mall in the name of X doesn't make X bad. It makes me an idiot."

And about the sex scandals...

The Church is a real, physical institution. It has buildings, a bureaucracy, a newspaper (Good read), bills, etc.

The Church also hires humans. These humans enjoy sports, fast food, cards, jokes...

And yes, they have vices. A fact which upsets and saddens most of its faithful.

Should we have Templar standards? Be Puritanical?

Let's just hope we don't realize that humans (Barring Ex Cathedra) aren't perfect. People screw up.

But hypocrisy is too precious, I'm sure.

This thing takes me 30 minutes to write a 5-minute tirade. Rage.

 

[Richard Lynch]

Ooo, now we're having fun.

I'll try to limit my responses to only the lines that actually make sense.

However, I'm not a Creationist. Did God create the world? Yes.

In seven days? No.

Again, you're a minority there. And again, I never claimed you were.

I'm a Conservative Catholic. If this is to continue, then get your denominations straight (Yes, you were a Roman Catholic. That's like claiming to be a Libertarian. There are too many variations).

I said nothing about denominations. Roman Catholicism is, so to say, the most "Catholic" of the bunch, and therefor I usually direct my remarks towards them. I have my denominations straight, you just choose to assume I'm always referring to you.

Also... How do I know Jesus existed?

1. Let me rephrase... Much of the Old Testament is dominated by symbolism. There actually was an Israel, after all.

2. Historical records match the Bible (oar it wuz teh Alumenatee). Jesus and the Apostles existed, according to recovered Roman records. There is a 2000-year old Middle Eastern man in a tomb under Rome, marked Petros.

Or, to flip it, prove that Louis XIV existed.

Pictures, records, sources...

Or would you like a photograph?

Okay... and how many Petros were there 2000 years ago? Surely not only one. Do you have a source for these records? And does this evidence supplied point towards the Bible Jesus and his Apostles? Or do you pick-and-choose the evidence to support the belief?

I've brought this up once or twice before, but have you ever the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Because it describes a man named Horus and his Apostles. About 90% of the story matches the Jesus to a tee. Except one small problem: The Egyptian Book of the Dead was written some 2000 years before the Bible.

3. I'm the moron that thinks blood erupting from bread... Or Scrolls in caves... Or the Fatima miracle...

I'm the idiot that can't comprehend the science behind those.

Have I ever seen them with my own eyes? No.

Therefore, they don't exist. And neither does Asia.

It's not about being able to see it (although that's a big part of things). We can't see atoms, or subatomic particles, or black holes. Do we know they exist? Yes, we do. How? Because we've done research and supplied evidence, and mathematics.

How many Christian theocracies are there in the world today?

No, Scientologyland doesn't count.

And no, 1600s Boston isn't valid either.

And thank goodness for that. How many were there, exactly? And what usually happened when they did exist?

As someone on Teh Internetz once said,

"Shooting up a mall in the name of X doesn't make X bad. It makes me an idiot."

People on the internet also say Obama doesn't have a birth certificate, or that 9/11 was an inside job (which has been scientifically refuted). Need I say more?

And about the sex scandals...

The Church is a real, physical institution. It has buildings, a bureaucracy, a newspaper (Good read), bills, etc.

The Church also hires humans. These humans enjoy sports, fast food, cards, jokes...

And yes, they have vices. A fact which upsets and saddens most of its faithful.

Should we have Templar standards? Be Puritanical?

Let's just hope we don't realize that humans (Barring Ex Cathedra) aren't perfect. People screw up.

Dealing with an institution that people build there entire lives around, and that promises everlasting life and warns about eternal damnation, I'd expect as much purity as possible. Religion is about faith, and thus faithfulness. If, all of a sudden, that faithfulness flies out the window... what's left? If priests, people who devote there life to their faith, can't remain faithful, what then? There were just too many incidents to say "Oops, we screwed up". And need I say that they were, in essence, much covered up? Again let me say that the very fact they got off because of their position is disgusting. It's like the Wall Street bailouts.

But hypocrisy is too precious, I'm sure.

Again, dealing with an institution that damns hypocrisy and not following their rules... yes, you're damn right.

 

[Lumina]

do you think these atheist students ought to be applauded for standing up for their views in the face of a prominently christian society,

Yes. Well, maybe not. The fact that they stood up for their views is worth recognition, but the views they were standing up for are not.

or do you feel they deserve to be frowned upon for purposely degrading the word of god?

Depends on who is frowning upon them.

do you agree with the point these students were making, that the bible's sanctified text is just as morally damaging as pornography?

HELL NO. Who would think that? I mean, I'm atheist, and I've only read about...three pages of the Bible, but come ON! That's just going too far.

 

[Blue Nocturne]

I've changed my mind on this actually. They shouldn't have used porn at all, because The Bible is much, much dirtier.

Here's two quotes from the bible that highlights what I'm talking about:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Here, God shows that he is quite comfortable with the concept of slavery, and asserts that it is fine to beat slaves, as long as you don't kill them.

If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

And here, God places the value of human life at around 30 pieces of silver and the life of a bull.

and finally:

Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him.

Lovely.

Perhaps the students should have just been trading bibles for beatings, or stabbing.

 

[Åzurε]

I've changed my mind on this actually. They shouldn't have used porn at all, because The Bible is much, much dirtier.

Here, God shows that he is quite comfortable with the concept of slavery, and asserts that it is fine to beat slaves, as long as you don't kill them.

Jewish culture back then. Folks had slaves, and that was a given. It was also more beneficial for the slave than the term implies. Another translation says "if the slave recovers in a day or two", rather than "gets up". Hebrew is required.

And here, God places the value of human life at around 30 pieces of silver and the life of a bull.

Or God's saying "do something to compensate, and kill the bull so it won't gore anyone else". :V

and finally:
*verse*
Lovely.

But even the most dedicated fundies don't have that rule today, do we they? We just stopped stoning folks so we didn't get our church pants dirty? It runs bit deeper than that. Happy to explain, should you want it explained.

 

[Blue Nocturne]

Jewish culture back then. Folks had slaves, and that was a given. It was also more beneficial for the slave than the term implies. Another translation says "if the slave recovers in a day or two", rather than "gets up". Hebrew is required.

God supposedly created everything, and had everything according to a plan, this means that he still created the culture where people had slaves. Either way, God loves slavery. Recovers, while it has more positive connotations, is still basically the same thing.

Or God's saying "do something to compensate, and kill the bull so it won't gore anyone else". :V

Either way, he's still putting a monetary value on life here. 30 Shekels of Silver was around the price of a slave, so all the owner of the bull was giving back is the price of a slave; like you would if the bull smashed an ornament.

But even the most dedicated fundies don't have that rule today, do we they?

That text is still there though, in black and white (or another colour, depending on your bible). Isn't the entire bible Gods word? If you don't stone me where I stand you're going against God are you not? No, you're much more moral than The Bible (and the rulers who wrote it). It's a dirty, dirty book.

 

[Dawn]

I said nothing about denominations. Roman Catholicism is, so to say, the most "Catholic" of the bunch, and therefor I usually direct my remarks towards them. I have my denominations straight, you just choose to assume I'm always referring to you.

Well, actually Richard. I was a Roman Catholic for most of my life. Went to a catholic school when I was younger too. I recall us studying the meanings behind the parables. (And I had a Drill Sargent of a nun for a teacher too. o.O) Not the actual history. I've always been raised believing that the bible was meant to teach lessons and not history. It makes sense, considering it's pretty darn hard to get one exact interpretation of the thing. Kind of implied it wasn't written with intent to be completely clear, which would be very odd and illogical for a history book.

Dealing with an institution that people build there entire lives around, and that promises everlasting life and warns about eternal damnation, I'd expect as much purity as possible. Religion is about faith, and thus faithfulness. If, all of a sudden, that faithfulness flies out the window... what's left? If priests, people who devote there life to their faith, can't remain faithful, what then? There were just too many incidents to say "Oops, we screwed up". And need I say that they were, in essence, much covered up? Again let me say that the very fact they got off because of their position is disgusting. It's like the Wall Street bailouts.

We're all human. The above concept simply isn't plausible in the modern world. People make mistakes. There's no way of avoiding it. Also, about this priest getting off supposedly scot free. He's now a sex offender and payed a fine for that, in addition to probation. Though it eludes me why he didn't serve actual jail-time, he was punished and the punishment is not nothing, though it may have been too small.

I've changed my mind on this actually. They shouldn't have used porn at all, because The Bible is much, much dirtier.

Here's two quotes from the bible that highlights what I'm talking about:

Here, God shows that he is quite comfortable with the concept of slavery, and asserts that it is fine to beat slaves, as long as you don't kill them.



And here, God places the value of human life at around 30 pieces of silver and the life of a bull.

and finally:

Lovely.

Perhaps the students should have just been trading bibles for beatings, or stabbing.

Oh boy. Now you're being offensive. Do you enjoy pulling things out of context? Do you realize that makes you ignorant?

A) Supposedly we're here on this rock as a punishment. I repeat, it's not meant to be a cakewalk. You should not expect it to. You should not search out reasons to blame God for all your problems. You should not completely ignore the fact that we supposedly did something wrong to get put here.

B) The culture of ancient civilizations is very different. This isn't even religious ignorance. This is worse. What was right and wrong for them was different. What the believed was different. They were not as evolved as us. There are so many more variables to this than "LOLOLOLOL GOD <insert playing of the racism card here>". Ugh.

That text is still there though, in black and white (or another colour, depending on your bible). Isn't the entire bible Gods word? If you don't stone me where I stand you're going against God are you not? No, you're much more moral than The Bible (and the rulers who wrote it). It's a dirty, dirty book.

Supposedly, God never forbid you interpret his words. He knew dang well we would and should. So let's use some logic here in our arguments, if you don't mind, instead of this nonsense.

 

[GaXeL]

I completely disagree with their views and I think they are acting in a childish manner.

But I support their 1st Amendment right to express their views. I would rofl if one of those student's ended up being under 18 and they got in legal trouble, though.

This is the best comment by far...
Are these people even Christian? they know they go to hell if they interpret the bible like that, right? Lol
I diassaprove.
But I guess you got to make money somehow. But now they can divide their Christian viewers by 5 and increase their chances to go to hell x10! Everybody wins, you see!

 

[Richard Lynch]

Well, actually Richard. I was a Roman Catholic for most of my life. Went to a catholic school when I was younger too. I recall us studying the meanings behind the parables. (And I had a Drill Sargent of a nun for a teacher too. o.O) Not the actual history. I've always been raised believing that the bible was meant to teach lessons and not history. It makes sense, considering it's pretty darn hard to get one exact interpretation of the thing. Kind of implied it wasn't written with intent to be completely clear, which would be very odd and illogical for a history book.

It does differ from place to place, I've found. Have you ever watched the religious channels? Every now and again I put on the Trinity Broadcast Network (I think it is), because it tends to be the most fundamentalist of the rest, and it's slightly scary. These are the people who believe that Jesus will return in their lifetime, and that war is somewhat inevitable (and that Obama is an evil socialist who wants to turn everyone Muslim). There's a guy on there named Jack Van Impe, if I recall, and while he has an incredible memory, he's always supporting lawful ideas with Bible verses, and he talks as if it's actual history. I'm happy that they are teaching the Bible isn't history (although I again ask why the New Testament can't be taken the same way).

We're all human. The above concept simply isn't plausible in the modern world. People make mistakes. There's no way of avoiding it. Also, about this priest getting off supposedly scot free. He's now a sex offender and payed a fine for that, in addition to probation. Though it eludes me why he didn't serve actual jail-time, he was punished and the punishment is not nothing, though it may have been too small.

I agree that we all make mistakes, but it wasn't just one priest. There were dozens upon dozens, and it really didn't make the news, and most of them weren't even really charged. The Vatican payed A LOT of money to protect these guys. That's not right, and perhaps that's what irks me most about the issue. The Vatican payed money to protect men who live by God's law that broke God's law in one of the worst ways (child abuse).

Oh boy. Now you're being offensive. Do you enjoy pulling things out of context? Do you realize that makes you ignorant?

A) Supposedly we're here on this rock as a punishment. I repeat, it's not meant to be a cakewalk. You should not expect it to. You should not search out reasons to blame God for all your problems. You should not completely ignore the fact that we supposedly did something wrong to get put here.

B) The culture of ancient civilizations is very different. This isn't even religious ignorance. This is worse. What was right and wrong for them was different. What the believed was different. They were not as evolved as us. There are so many more variables to this than "LOLOLOLOL GOD <insert playing of the racism card here>". Ugh.

Actually, Blue Nocturne made perfect sense here, and is in no way ignorant. While I actually agree that it depends on the context of the day, there are many that don't, and (even if they don't believe in slavery or murder) still tell me that the Bible must be followed, and is "forever". Would you agree with me if I said, much like constitutional rights, the Bible should be, so to say, "edited" for the time it is now in?

Supposedly, God never forbid you interpret his words. He knew dang well we would and should. So let's use some logic here in our arguments, if you don't mind, instead of this nonsense.

Going by my last paragraph, I'll restate that Blue Nocturne has made one of the most logical comments here that I've seen, and I applaud him (her?) for it. Interpretation differs, and is not rooted in logic. I love interpretation, and I adore movies/books that are open ended, but for something that can control people's lives and the way they live, there should be something a bit more concrete than "make up your own mind". Because that's what I preach... but somehow that doesn't really happen. Don't forget that the fundamentalist approach is to take every word of the Bible as fact.

 

[Dawn]

It does differ from place to place, I've found. Have you ever watched the religious channels? Every now and again I put on the Trinity Broadcast Network (I think it is), because it tends to be the most fundamentalist of the rest, and it's slightly scary. These are the people who believe that Jesus will return in their lifetime, and that war is somewhat inevitable (and that Obama is an evil socialist who wants to turn everyone Muslim). There's a guy on there named Jack Van Impe, if I recall, and while he has an incredible memory, he's always supporting lawful ideas with Bible verses, and he talks as if it's actual history.

I'm afraid I do not. I am lazy about participating in my religious community.

Actually, Blue Nocturne made perfect sense here, and is in no way ignorant. While I actually agree that it depends on the context of the day, there are many that don't, and (even if they don't believe in slavery or murder) still tell me that the Bible must be followed, and is "forever". Would you agree with me if I said, much like constitutional rights, the Bible should be, so to say, "edited" for the time it is now in?

I don't see how he isn't ignorant? I mean it's contradictory to agree with me that context is important and say he isn't ignorant. Because he sort of completely ignored the context of the age they were in, and completely ignored one of the most famous bible stories out there. (Adam & Eve) I mean his argument is based on an ignorance born fallacy, quite frankly.

 

[Richard Lynch]

I'm afraid I do not. I am lazy about participating in my religious community.

And for that, I actually applaud you.

I don't see how he isn't ignorant? I mean it's contradictory to agree with me that context is important and say he isn't ignorant. Because he sort of completely ignored the context of the age they were in, and completely ignored one of the most famous bible stories out there. (Adam & Eve) I mean his argument is based on an ignorance born fallacy, quite frankly.

Because he made no claims to context, or when they were written. He merely pointed out that the Bible is, in essence, smuttier than porn. He just said it's there, and if that's God's word, then...?

How do we know that God meant for us to interpret it? We don't. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "Take my word for the time" or something like that. It does say, plain and simple, that His law is concrete and forever. In that way, saying we must interpret it is just one more way of picking and choosing for one's argument, saying "Well, that worked for then, but not now..." Because eventually, by extrapolation, you will reach an age when almost every teaching of the Bible is outdated, and then what?

The Church is built around tradition, and more than often totally fears change (don't forget that it was only in the 60's that Vatican III introduced the vernacular into mass). If you change something enough, it loses its identity, although it may be made of the same material. Don't get me wrong, I would adore to see that, but it seems contradictory that you would support the change.

 

[Lunacy Giat]

Look, you could burn all the Bibles, Torahs, Korans, etc. in the world. But it doesn't matter, those books just contain ideas. Those that have read those books have been exposed to their ideas and have already made decisions on the lessons taught in them. Fahrenheit 451 anyone? To quote V from V for Vendetta, ideas are "bulletproof".

But I might go ahead and say that these were "fundamentalist" atheists, those that go around and throw their ideas and beliefs in your face. Making them almost the exact same thing as the groups they are arguing against. I'm an atheist myself, but I'm culturally relativistic. I accept that other people have different viewpoints because of the culture/religion/society that they've grown up in. I will only react with my ideas when provoked.

As for the porn thing, that's quite hilarious.

 

[Blue Nocturne]

I don't see how he isn't ignorant? I mean it's contradictory to agree with me that context is important and say he isn't ignorant. Because he sort of completely ignored the context of the age they were in, and completely ignored one of the most famous bible stories out there. (Adam & Eve) I mean his argument is based on an ignorance born fallacy, quite frankly.

Actually, the context of the age is another reason in my favour. God created that context where slavery was OK, and right and wrong was different. He intentionally made Slavery OK. So the work of God was concrete and literal back then but should now be interpreted? In other words:

In that way, saying we must interpret it is just one more way of picking and choosing for one's argument, saying "Well, that worked for then, but not now..." Because eventually, by extrapolation, you will reach an age when almost every teaching of the Bible is outdated, and then what?

Instead of just calling me ignorant, perhaps you'd like to suggest how these lines condoning slavery are supposed to be interpreted. Considering every line is the work of god and that "until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18), theres not much else it can be.

 

[KanadeTenshi]

I see this thread is heading in a lovely way.. so, can someone answer me:
Where did the bible come from?
And no, "God's words" isn't a qualified answer.