You go to Hell for believing some parts of the Bible are bull****, but not others-

Her'e's a little advice about priorities in life, bruce: be more concerned about immoral people being perfectly fine with their own (non-believing) family/friends being savagely tortured, while they bask in paradise, than the person simply POINTING OUT their incredibly immoral behavior. It's called "priorities".

 

So, bruce, who is more vile, ME for simply pointing out the savage torture approved by Jesus/Mohammad, or the savage torturers themselves? Hmmmmm? The person who reports on Saddam's brutal torture chambers, or the brutal torturer (Saddam) himself? Please tell us.

 

As with all people, you try to defend your own shortcomings by comparing them to others.
Rise above that and confront your own.

 

Here is the issue.
One of these I have to confront daily when I come on here.
The other is a talking point.

 

You really don't understand that Christians/Muslims are immoral because they are perfectly fine with you and I roasting for not believing that magic invisible people are actually real.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll ask it again, bruce, which is it?

 

I think the Abrahamic cultures had religious traditions that we do not practice today, many practices attributed to religions are sometimes cultural.

 

So then clearly Mohammad is not the best role model of all time, TODAY, correct?

 

He is not a role model for me, but like all mythos there are jewels of wisdom and life lessons within the Qu'ran, and Bible, but I am not one of the faithful.

I take them for what they are, literature of their periods.

I admire Adicus Finch, he is my role model.

 

How many times do you want to ask the same questions?
How long will you remain manipulative and call it my problem?

 

see how easy it is to avoid this issue?

 

It's called opinion...and you know the saying I hope.

 

Love me some Atticus!!!

 

You're in denial, I'm afraid.

 

You are afraid.
That is why you keep clipping my posts down to what you can manage.

 

I USED to be afraid of a magic invisible immoral zombie, but then I got smart.

 

Your avoidance of my point simply confirms it.
If you are not displaying the smarts you claim to have, where shall we look up that evidence?

 

No, the translators said that they were writing about a rhino (rhinocerot,archaic: rhinoceros http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhinocerot) . They said unicorn and rhino as if they were synonyms. Maybe that's how the unicorn myth started. Somebody tells a group of people about a four legged creature with a huge horn that they saw. Others who only hear the story imagined it looking more like a horse, and left out the little horn entirely (which they may not have even heard about).

 

Just so we are clear that a rhino has two horns, you made up the part about running fast, and its a matter of opinion as to whether of not they actually meant rhino, an animal unknown north of subsaharan Africa.

 

Just so we are clear, the translators specifically stated what they were talking about, so, no, it's not a matter of opinion. "King James Translators' Notes "unicorns: or, rhinocerots" http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/34-7.htm All your diversions aside, these notes are what matters. I gave a plausible scenario as to how one could have become associated with the other, but the "how" really doesn't matter. What matters is that they DID associate the two, as shown.

 

So the translators somehow knew that those middle eastern guys knew what a rhino is?



If your bible writers had seen a rhino, why would they describe it as they do?

And, your forgot to say if you are agreeing that you made up the thing about running fast.

 

Another diversionary question. The point is that the original Hebrew never said "unicorn", and most translators did not translate it as such. And since the Middle East is in Africa, why wouldn't you think that they would have some knowledge of these animals? They had spent thousands of years together on the same continent. A rhino could've wandered North, or some nomads might have wandered South. The second scenario seems more likely, which would leave the majority of Middle Easterners with only oral accounts of rhinos.

What description are you referring to? Remember, the original Hebrew didn't say "unicorn", that's just what some Europeans translated it into thousands of years later.

Like I said, I was just laying out a plausible scenario, but since your whole point is to play gotcha, sure, I MADE IT UP. There, now you can stop diverting with that tangent. What I did NOT make up is that the KJV translators, who are the only major translation to use the word unicorn, said exactly what they were talking about in their notes. So NOBODY who translated it as unicorn was referring to the mythical beast that we envision.