It is amazing how touchy some folks are around here (SOME, not by any means ALL). if you correct someone's misapprehension about a particular religion, this correction is often taken, at best, as a defense of that religion, or of religion in general, or as a sign that you subscribe to that religion yourself, or that you are a troll intent upon converting anyone who will comply to that religion or any other.

for example, if someone claims that muslims eat live rabbits dipped in chocolate sauce and you correct them, no, sorry, they don't actually do that, the claimant will say s/he knows a muslim who does that, muslims are dreadful people, and demand to know why you are defending islam. if someone claims that jews are out to convert everyone (and to kill everyone who won't convert) and you say actually jews discourage conversion officially, three times, and are strict about giving permission after those three official discouragements (youj have to have a good reason, and "i want to marry a jew" is not usually considered a good reason), and you have to study for about a year to do it, you will be told emphatically that you are delusional, even if you actually know what you're talking about and the claimant hasn't got a clue. it has nothing to do with defending religion. it is a matter of defending FACTS. (saying that shit isn't made out of foam rubber does NOT mean you actually eat the stuff.)

the latter example (about jews and killing people who won't convert, not about shit and foam rubber) is approximately what occurred today, in fact. the claimant and a defender thereof both blocked me (oh, i am boo-hooing about THAT rofl) after the latter individual made weird accusations (everything from my being emotional to my being a religionist) when i corrected the former's claim about jews killing those who won't convert. the defender cited chapter and verse to prove the claimant was right. a couple of problems with that:

1. chapter and verse without BOOK (he just said "thorah," which he later clarified as "old testament," apparently unaware that people who don't acknowledge the NEW testament as a holy text don't HAVE an old one, and equally unaware that "thorah" isn't a word, while "torah" is, and while i might have just dismissed this as a simple typo -- i make 'em pretty easily myself -- the general ignorance of the whole post was such that i felt her actually thought he was quoting something called "thorah" ) so the chapter and verse were impossible to look up (and google didn't recognize any portion of the quotation either). so he had no clue that there are BOOKS in the bible, and you have to say which one you mean before the chapter, much less the verse, will be meaningful. yet he felt confident quoting (or misquoting -- i may never know).

2. judaism doesn't depend on a literal reading of torah. (slavery isn't part of modern judaism and jews don't stone people to death -- some muslims still do, but that's politics, not religion). individual jews (and some extreme group, perhaps) might favor a literal reading, just as individual christians might, and others don't, but judaism itself does NOT, and just as the 613 commandments include an injunction against murder and yet an individual jew might murder, and the paltry 10 might say not to do that an a random christian might murder anyway, the respective religions say NOT to, and no number of biblical battle scenes of godly diatribes will change that.

note that the fact that i am talking about something i encountered doesn't mean i am excited, upset, emotional or distraught. it means i am sharing an experience with y'all that is pertinent to the subject of this site.

further note that i am culturally jewish (raised secularly but with a strong cultural identity) and an adamant atheist (since age 15), and like most good atheists, i do happen to know a little something about my background. isn't the bible (whichever one you choose) the most effective blueprint for atheism, at least for the discerning reader?

g