Is religion good?

[Portzania]

The book itself is proof

Nope, the book is the claim.

These claims be fire though

[Arval Va]

Nope, the book is the claim.

These claims be fire though

Psalm 137:9

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

These claims be fire though

Psalm 137:9

No, these claims be fire.

Colerick 420:69

Well I wrote this song for the Christian youth
I wanna teach kids the Christian truth
If you wanna reach those kids on the street
Then you gotta do a rap to a hip-hop beat
I gave my sermon an urban kick
My rhymes are fly, my beats are sick
My crew is big and it keeps getting bigger
That's cause Jesus Christ is my (You know the rules, and so do I)

He's a life-changer, miracle-arranger
Born to the virgin mom in a manger
Water to wine, he's a drink exchanger
And he died for your sins
I preach the word, that's my gig
And I rhyme better than Notorious BIG
Other emcees, I wish them well
But if you live in sin, you burn in hell
Now I'ma pass the mic to my lovely wife
She's a fly emcee and the light of my life
So to bust a rhyme without further ado
Take it away, Mary Sue!

[Trans-Mississippi]

The book itself is proof

Why should you trust that book over any other?

The Bible gets a lot of the things it says about history right, so it has credibility.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Why should you trust that book over any other?

The Bible gets a lot of the things it says about history right, so it has credibility.

It was written in the time period it gets correct, and even then, it gets a whole lot of shit wrong.

[Trans-Mississippi]

The Bible gets a lot of the things it says about history right, so it has credibility.

It was written in the time period it gets correct, and even then, it gets a whole lot of shit wrong.

Yeah exactly my point, but what does it get wrong.

[Portzania]

These claims be fire though

Psalm 137:9

Me when I post an out of context verse and ignore everyone's interpretation of it

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

It was written in the time period it gets correct, and even then, it gets a whole lot of shit wrong.

Yeah exactly my point, but what does it get wrong.

It getting stuff right about its own time period does not give it credible. If I wrote a book today and said "Joe Biden is the U.S. President", that doesn't give me any more credibility. That's an easily found factoid that means nothing. And, for one, there is little/no evidence that the Red Sea ever parted, or that Jericho was completely destroyed, or that Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Psalm 137:9

Me when I post an out of context verse and ignore everyone's interpretation of it

I mean the context is that the children are the future generation of the enemy which must be fully destroyed to claim victory which isn't much better. But, what is your interpretation?

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Yeah exactly my point, but what does it get wrong.

It getting stuff right about its own time period does not give it credible. If I wrote a book today and said "Joe Biden is the U.S. President", that doesn't give me any more credibility. That's an easily found factoid that means nothing. And, for one, there is little/no evidence that the Red Sea ever parted, or that Jericho was completely destroyed, or that Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

Or that god flooded the world to allow his favourite human to make an animal fuckzoo. Definitely still the good guy though, sure.

If I wrote “Donald Trump was the president and rainbows are unicorn farts” I would have exactly the same amount of credibility as Trans-Mississippi reckons the bible has.

[Trans-Mississippi]

Yeah exactly my point, but what does it get wrong.

It getting stuff right about its own time period does not give it credible. If I wrote a book today and said "Joe Biden is the U.S. President", that doesn't give me any more credibility. That's an easily found factoid that means nothing. And, for one, there is little/no evidence that the Red Sea ever parted, or that Jericho was completely destroyed, or that Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

Exactly it gets stuff right, so whats to say the other stuff isn't also true

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

It getting stuff right about its own time period does not give it credible. If I wrote a book today and said "Joe Biden is the U.S. President", that doesn't give me any more credibility. That's an easily found factoid that means nothing. And, for one, there is little/no evidence that the Red Sea ever parted, or that Jericho was completely destroyed, or that Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

Exactly it gets stuff right, so whats to say the other stuff isn't also true

Ah, so Aristotle was right about the 4 elements because he was right about some other shit. And Pythagoras was right about evil runner beans, cuz he was right about the theorem? And rainbows are unicorn farts because I am right about Donald Trump having been the president, and I wrote it down on the same sheet of paper as the unicorn farts statement.

[Necroghastia]

It getting stuff right about its own time period does not give it credible. If I wrote a book today and said "Joe Biden is the U.S. President", that doesn't give me any more credibility. That's an easily found factoid that means nothing. And, for one, there is little/no evidence that the Red Sea ever parted, or that Jericho was completely destroyed, or that Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

Exactly it gets stuff right, so whats to say the other stuff isn't also true

The lack of evidence, and evidence against, other claims. Like the extinction-inducing genetic bottleneck a worldwide flood where the only survivors were one dude's immediate family and two of every other animal would create (not to mention the evidence against a worldwide flood in the first place).

[Portzania]

Me when I post an out of context verse and ignore everyone's interpretation of it

I mean the context is that the children are the future generation of the enemy which must be fully destroyed to claim victory which isn't much better. But, what is your interpretation?

Going from the context of the verse, this references the edomites and babylonians who looted and destroyed Jerusalem. The quote “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”, isn't someone saying "hey im gonna go kill babies lmao", it's more of the grudge that the Jews held against them, desperately wanting their murderers and looters to be punished.
(obviously it's not an endorsement to kill everyone you meet that has did a minor inconvenience to you either.)

This reflects our society today, as (some) people who've lost their family members/loved ones to murderers would want the death of the culprit.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

It getting stuff right about its own time period does not give it credible. If I wrote a book today and said "Joe Biden is the U.S. President", that doesn't give me any more credibility. That's an easily found factoid that means nothing. And, for one, there is little/no evidence that the Red Sea ever parted, or that Jericho was completely destroyed, or that Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

Exactly it gets stuff right, so whats to say the other stuff isn't also true

Not... how that works?
1: If I say "Joe Biden is the U.S. President" and then say "Unicorns are real", that doesn't make the latter true. Being correct about some things doesn't mean you are right about everything. You can make up certain aspects of what is otherwise the truth.
2: The fact that they got info about their own time period wrong really ruins their credibility. Like in the above example, me saying Unicorns are real makes me a lot less trustworthy, even though the first statement is true.
3: We are almost completely sure the other stuff isn't true. There's no evidence of it, when there is evidence of other events that happened around the same time period. There's no reason to believe the Bible with these things.

[Trans-Mississippi]

Exactly it gets stuff right, so whats to say the other stuff isn't also true

Ah, so Aristotle was right about the 4 elements because he was right about some other shit. And Pythagoras was right about evil runner beans, cuz he was right about the theorem? And rainbows are unicorn farts because I am right about Donald Trump having been the president, and I wrote it down on the same sheet of paper as the unicorn farts statement.

The Bibe was right about stuff before science claimed it or proved it, it just gives merit to the other stuff claimed in the Bible. Also the whole Donald Trump and unicorn farts means nothing, we can clearly observe that they are not unicorn farts, also you have no credibility.

[Trans-Mississippi]

Exactly it gets stuff right, so whats to say the other stuff isn't also true

Not... how that works?
1: If I say "Joe Biden is the U.S. President" and then say "Unicorns are real", that doesn't make the latter true. Being correct about some things doesn't mean you are right about everything. You can make up certain aspects of what is otherwise the truth.
2: The fact that they got info about their own time period wrong really ruins their credibility. Like in the above example, me saying Unicorns are real makes me a lot less trustworthy, even though the first statement is true.
3: We are almost completely sure the other stuff isn't true. There's no evidence of it, when there is evidence of other events that happened around the same time period. There's no reason to believe the Bible with these things.

1. Same thing, we know they are not, and you have no credibility.
2. Like what did they get wrong.

[Necroghastia]

Ah, so Aristotle was right about the 4 elements because he was right about some other shit. And Pythagoras was right about evil runner beans, cuz he was right about the theorem? And rainbows are unicorn farts because I am right about Donald Trump having been the president, and I wrote it down on the same sheet of paper as the unicorn farts statement.

The Bibe was right about stuff before science claimed it or proved it

Such as?

[Trans-Mississippi]

The Bibe was right about stuff before science claimed it or proved it

Such as?

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6).
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16).
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1).
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3).
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14).

And more but I can explain these if you would like.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Ah, so Aristotle was right about the 4 elements because he was right about some other shit. And Pythagoras was right about evil runner beans, cuz he was right about the theorem? And rainbows are unicorn farts because I am right about Donald Trump having been the president, and I wrote it down on the same sheet of paper as the unicorn farts statement.

The Bibe was right about stuff before science claimed it or proved it, it just gives merit to the other stuff claimed in the Bible. Also the whole Donald Trump and unicorn farts means nothing, we can clearly observe that they are not unicorn farts, also you have no credibility.

Because there are records of things like “Jesus existed”. Those were easily observable facts. And Aristotle and Pythagoras were right before science claimed or proved it, were they right about their bullshit, like the bible’s creationism? And “we can clearly observe they are not unicorn farts”, how? How can we clearly observe that an event like Noah’s Ark and the flood, which would have easily left a mark, did happen?

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Not... how that works?
1: If I say "Joe Biden is the U.S. President" and then say "Unicorns are real", that doesn't make the latter true. Being correct about some things doesn't mean you are right about everything. You can make up certain aspects of what is otherwise the truth.
2: The fact that they got info about their own time period wrong really ruins their credibility. Like in the above example, me saying Unicorns are real makes me a lot less trustworthy, even though the first statement is true.
3: We are almost completely sure the other stuff isn't true. There's no evidence of it, when there is evidence of other events that happened around the same time period. There's no reason to believe the Bible with these things.

1. Same thing, we know they are not, and you have no credibility.
2. Like what did they get wrong.

1: What does this even mean? Same thing as what? We know what is not?
2: I just said what they got wrong. The red sea never got parted, Jericho never got destroyed, Sodom and Gomorrah never existed.

[Arval Va]

I mean the context is that the children are the future generation of the enemy which must be fully destroyed to claim victory which isn't much better. But, what is your interpretation?

Going from the context of the verse, this references the edomites and babylonians who looted and destroyed Jerusalem. The quote “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”, isn't someone saying "hey im gonna go kill babies lmao", it's more of the grudge that the Jews held against them, desperately wanting their murderers and looters to be punished.
(obviously it's not an endorsement to kill everyone you meet that has did a minor inconvenience to you either.)

This reflects our society today, as (some) people who've lost their family members/loved ones to murderers would want the death of the culprit.

And why should that punishment be infanticide? In modern society, most people can agree that children should not be punished for their parents' wrongdoing (though that's something the Bible just happens to be rather partial to). Seems to be quite an interesting choice of words for a grudge.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Going from the context of the verse, this references the edomites and babylonians who looted and destroyed Jerusalem. The quote “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”, isn't someone saying "hey im gonna go kill babies lmao", it's more of the grudge that the Jews held against them, desperately wanting their murderers and looters to be punished.
(obviously it's not an endorsement to kill everyone you meet that has did a minor inconvenience to you either.)

This reflects our society today, as (some) people who've lost their family members/loved ones to murderers would want the death of the culprit.

And why should that punishment be infanticide? In modern society, most people can agree that children should not be punished for their parents' wrongdoing (though that's something the Bible just happens to be rather partial to). Seems to be quite an interesting choice of words for a grudge.

The bible also endorses selling your first daughter into slavery.

[HISPIDA]

And why should that punishment be infanticide? In modern society, most people can agree that children should not be punished for their parents' wrongdoing (though that's something the Bible just happens to be rather partial to). Seems to be quite an interesting choice of words for a grudge.

The bible also endorses selling your first daughter into slavery.

sorry, that one was me.

[Portzania]

Going from the context of the verse, this references the edomites and babylonians who looted and destroyed Jerusalem. The quote “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”, isn't someone saying "hey im gonna go kill babies lmao", it's more of the grudge that the Jews held against them, desperately wanting their murderers and looters to be punished.
(obviously it's not an endorsement to kill everyone you meet that has did a minor inconvenience to you either.)

This reflects our society today, as (some) people who've lost their family members/loved ones to murderers would want the death of the culprit.

And why should that punishment be infanticide?

No where in my reply did I said the punishment should’ve infanticide though. Be honest, did you actually read the whole thing? The Babylonians were the ones committing acts of infancide, and the Jews had a burning hatred for them, and wanted Justice.