The god of the bible wants you to turn the other cheek. 
It can’t be rocket science if I can get it.
Oooh, so Frank Aspisa is the Cesario of the Bible?
Interesting!
I would appreciate it if y’all would use Frank apisa’s full username when referring to him or his posts.
Maybe that’s just me.
Why do you suppose the god of the bible wants me to love other people?
Cause “The Lord” would like us to bear spiritual fruit, not religious nuts? 
The tone of the thread seems to be “Frank apisa seems to have an annoying habit of starting anti-Christian Bible threads.”
As for me, meh. I think it’s kinda fun to look at the Bible and challenge your views of it. I didn’t get that he was trying to stick it Christians. I thought he was just challenging them to explain what seems unexplainable. Of course he’s not going to change anyone’s opinion. If that’s what he’s trying to do, he’s an idiot.
BTW, the answer to the question above is that the normal process is “Enemy is being mean. So I’ll be mean back. So Enemy will be meaner, and I’ll be meaner back.” The only thing that stops the cycle is being so mean that one side desides not to be mean back. An alternative is to break the cycle earlier by not being mean back in the first place.
And, yes, that’s about how easy it is to answer all of Frank apisa’s threads, so good job with the parody. Does he honestly think an intellectual Christian would not have thought about the implication of his beliefs?
I find it quite understandable. I’m the Treasurer of an organization and my real first name is the same as that of another frequent attendee, and also that of an Albany, NY contact who inspired the formation of our group (nearly a year ago) and just now arranged for out funding to go through. *
Starting last spring I have asked often enough for folks to distinguish our names during meetings by adding the last name initials (Coincidentally they are A., B., and C., in no particular order of mentioning here.) – or at least just calling me by a lifelong-though-infrequently-used nickname:
[del]True Blue[/del] Jack
(Yes. it’s me.)
– but to no avail, so far… 
- The e-mail announcing that our sizerable first-year (annuitized) funding and smaller start-up funding was finally shaken loose from a triple bureaucracy was just sent out two days ago, Wednesday, Feb. 24th!
Yippeeeeee!!!***
– Oh, excuse me… carry on with the pittiing.
(Ol’ Whatzisname)
Every once in a while, decalre peace for no reason. It will confuse the hell out of your enemies - Ferrengi Rules of Acquisition.
Yes.
Protip: Next time, include something funny and/or clever.
Well, obviously. 
I mean, I considered responding to one of Frank apisa’s threads with something like “Damn. Never thought of that. becomes atheist”, but what’s the point?
IANA Psychic, but I suspect Frank apiso may have once believed in fundamentalist Christianity himself. I was a Pentecostal Christian until age 17; when I relinquished my Christianity, the realization that portions of the Bible are contradictory and/or fiction was a major contributing factor. The questions I had at that time were very similar to the OP’s.
Even now, it doesn’t make complete sense to me that people practice a religion based on a book that those particular practitioners believe is imperfect (for lack of a better word). If one disagrees with any part of a religion’s doctrine then why would he choose that particular belief system as his religion?
I know. It’s like settling for a second-hand god!
One previous owner. New owner likes bacon. Has decided to go for an upgrade.
Well then. You sure told me.
He is new. He’ll not be surprised at the responses soon.
The “you guys” are those who address the criticism of any Bible verse with the “we don’t think it is infallible” response. I’m curious as to what parts of the Bible they do believe in. We know this for Thomas Jefferson.
The scientific fact argument is indeed tiresome, but he’s been addressing the ethical fact argument. That’s far more interesting. The Bible may not be a science book, but if it isn’t a book of morals I don’t know what it is.
My argument is that reglionists pick and choose which morals to follow, and often come up with a better set than what is in the Bible, but also claim that their set has some special claim to being universal because it came from the Bible, ignoring the filter when inconvenient or giving spurious and inconsistent arguments supporting their filters. This is something even moderate Christians do.