This is a simple philosophy of why I don’t follow the Christian God, and I would like to see what you defense / explanation of why my points are not valid or are valid.

1.   Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.  Now the reason I don’t like this passage during the exodus into Canaan, is because this event is equivalent to genocide, and because their merciless killing of children in Jericho.
2.   Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.    Now at one time I might have liked that, but since I don’t think war or violence has a place in the world this obviously promoting of conflict doesn’t sit well with me. What I got from it is: Christians don’t promote peace if their leader said these words.
3.   Luke 22:36 he said unto them but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath, let him sell his garment, and buy one.        Now what I have told is that, that is a metaphor, but why is a talking snake literal,  but selling all your cloths to buy a weapon is a metaphor?
4.   Also, from what I know of history, crucified criminals were put into mass graves not tombs….
5.   Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sister, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.               To, this rewarding people for abandoning their family is almost ridiculous, I pretty sure you should be there for your families, but rewarding them for abandoning their families just doesn’t sit well with me.


So do you have a logical reason pushing aside the issues I brought up? 

I take it from your last comment that you don't want me to address your points above. If you would like me to do that, I'd be happy to. Until then....

If we read Scripture as a whole rather than getting bogged down in seemingly contradictory or illogical specifics, there is a consistent message. That message, oddly enough, is consistent with modern psychology concerning the development and well-being of people. It seems marvelous to me that these writings, as disparate as they are, could provide such a consistent and valid view of human beings. Simply put, the Christian faith makes excellent psychological and philosophical sense.

The reading of Scripture and its appropiate application is debated among believers and academics on a daily basis. The key is to actually know the text, but more importantly to know the author and the thrust of what the text describes. Once we have done this, we then approach the text just as we might a conversation with a friend. We know when our friends are making allusions and when they are being literal. We know this because we know them, we are aware of the conversation's setting, and we grasp the multi-variate shades inherent in language.

I will make one observation concerning your post number 4. Criminals throughout history have been buried in mass graves. That does not proscribe exceptions to that rule. Americans drive cars everywhere they go; does that mean that no Americans walk? The very fact that there is a difference in handling may well indicate a difference in person or circumstance. If the person of whom we speak is "different" in some way, we might well expect his treatment to be different - and that is what the story tells us. In this case, someone asked for the body. It may well be that if no one had asked, the three would have been disposed of together. Perhaps that is why we are told that someone specficiall asked for the body.

Did you want me to address your other points?

You misunderstood me. I did not say faith made sense psychologically. I said psychology agrees with the thrust of Scripture. Those are two completely different ideas that you would do well to understand.

Whether the Bible is a credible source depends on what we're trying to source. It does not follow that simply because you don't like some of what you read, that the credibility of a source is impacted one iota. You may not like it, and that's your right, but it really is irrelevant to the discussion.

People can be manipulated by just about anybody. I'm a therapist by trade and I can assure you that manipulation is actually quite easily done. That however, also does not apply to the discussion.

I didn't say you should read the Bible. I said you should know it - understand it. Any child can read it; that's not the point. Before declaring it stupid, it might be worth your time to actually learn it - learn it's message - learn it's God. You have not done so and that is evident from the examples in your five points.

If it requires a large book to explain what you believe, then either you don't believe it or you don't understand it.

People should not believe out of fear of Hell. It is a pity that was your starting point.

Your points:
General observation. It is quite easy to pick things we don't like in just about any philosophy. I suspect there are some things in that big book of yours with which I'd disagree. So the fact that you don't like them is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. With that in mind, we'll move on....

1. I understand your recoil from this event; I'm not at all sure I understand it completely. What makes murder murder is our human passion - not the actual killing. Scripture allows capital punishment and so we understand that Scripture, nor the character of God, proscribes killing people per se. The question changes when the cause of the killing is God. God does not suffer from our limited prideful lives. He is, after all, the Creator of all things. He says as much to Job - who are you to question Me? Did you create the mountains? Did you cause the world to be? What was the purpose of massacreing people? It was simply, to protect the people of God as the people of God. Israel's failure to eliminate temptation from among them resulted in the death of David's house, the Wisest Man on Earth worshiped other non-Gods, and the country moved from a theocracy to a monarchy. The call of God's people is to trust Him, not other countries, other gods, or to seek refuge in forms of government that deny God's presence among them. It is instructive here to note that this is not the first such massacre. God has in fact massacred Israel in the desert before this so as to remove those who grumbled against (read: did not trust) God. Grusome? Yes. Difficult? Yes. Impossible to grasp? No.

2. Yes, we know what you like and don't like. But again, that isn't the point. This is an example of where you have not grasped the concept of language nuances and meanings. The text you quote does not mean that it is God's intent to bring chaos and violence. It simply means that it's going to happen. It is a warning against thinking that everything's going to be fine now that God's here. It won't be. Non-believers aren't going to let that happen.

3. I don't know with whom you are arguing - I haven't mentioned a snake. However, this too is a warning and this quote depends for its import on the context of the passage. Jesus says that in the past the followers had been protected (or provided for). Now however, things have changed. Non-believers are going to make it rough for the followers of God and so they need to be prepared. The sword was for defense, if needed.

4. We've covered your 4th point. If there is further clarification I need to provide, let me know.

5. This also explicates your failure to grasp language conventions. The idea here is not to wontonly abandon one's families. It's purpose is to emphasize the importance of following God. It is imperative that when Messiah shows up, we follow Him. With some small amount of luck, our families will follow too and therefore there is no abandonment. It may well be instructive that we are not told that any families went destitute because their bread winners took off on a country jaunt of a few years.

And so what do we have? From what I can tell of your evidence in your OP, you poorly grasp Scripture and read it with little understanding of sophisticated language. As a result, you throw up your hands and declare that it is all rubbish. You're welcome to do that, as long as we remember that doing so is based on your somewhat limited ability to grasp the nuances of language and a seemingly overly developed want to deny the utility of something that doesn't make sense to you.

That last there is normal. I assume you're human, and that's what humans tend to do when confronted by things that don't seem to fit their worldviews. Religious people do it and non-religious people do it. It is, quite frankly, completely predictable.

Blessings

Thank you for proving my point you two.
As far as I am concerned, you are threatening me with the wrath of your God. Anything you two have to say is moot, because you stoop to such petty tactics.
This is part of the Christian recruitment method. You make people fear your God and hell, and then you make people want it to be true that you’re God and Jesus can save you.
It’s all a part of an elaborate lie.
 
Larry2, no matter how many hypocrites there are within man. The fact that God himself is one, and a mass murderer, makes Him and any of His followers something to abhor.

No matter what you say, by simply believing in your God, you have condoned child murder.

I wanted to visit your comment about Buddhism. I believe there are considerable good things in Buddhist thought (actually, Zen thought which is what I am most familiar with). There are considerable positive parallels between Christianity and Zen and the two could likely exist together without much friction. Ideas of compassion, interdependence, nothingness, and grace toward others are common between them. If I was choosing a religion off the bookshelf, Zen would be in my top two or three.

My only concern about Zen is it's abject denial of a Creator God, rather than simple agnosticism, its lack of ability to explain Man's purpose, and its lack of hope.