The bible wasn't written as a book. It is a compilation of discrete articles, written at different times, in different places, by different authors, that are venerated by the church.

Importantly, as I explained above, the Orthodox church (the original church) and the Catholic church (the first schism) have a written and oral Tradition that outlines the meaning of everything (specifically to avoid this situation).

Yes indeed! The full quote has a specific meaning: that women should stay silent in church as per the law. This was the law of the land at the time and is strange for Paul to say since he supposedly held the law (Mosaic Law) in disdain. His particular instructions were only intended for the people he was speaking to. He didn't forsee that some person would attempt, two millenium later, to apply those intructions to a foreign situation.

Very importantly, only recently in history have some versions of Christianity abandoned what is called Tradition and started taking the word of the bible as its own contextual source (sola scriptura). The Orthodox and Catholic churches have Tradition and it lays down a continual (2000 year old) framework for which to interpret the bible and other aspects of the religion.

I'm not a scholar in this area so I don't know a lot, perhaps someone else can chime in.

TLDR - the verse has been taken out of context.

Unfortunately, everyone on this is wrong - I don't agree with transmorpher so much, but if we don't get population growth under control, all the green energy in the world won't be enough. Which is why the Pope pontificating on planetary stewardship is nothing short of obscene. When the Catholic Church starts making birth control a mandatory practice for good Catholics, then I'll start believing his advice on global stewardship is sincere.

That hardly seems the most straight forward reading though as it seems at odds with later advocating love your enemy and all, no?

One of the things that both protestants and catholics have almost always agreed upon was that the line about "will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" is that everything WAS accomplished, at the latest, with Jesus death. That's the wiki that came up first quickly summarized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

I'll not object to vehemently disagreeing with the interpretation, but can you at least acknowledge that centuries of 'christians' under a multitude of different sects have held pretty consistently on the notion that the old testament kill all unbelievers was CONTRARY to Jesus teachings and direction for his would be followers. That doesn't negate plenty of people right up until today(westboro) who still do want to take your more bloody interpretation instead.

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

"They murder over tiny details".

Question, who is 'they'? The 'Christians' who ran the crusades? The protestant 'Christians' bombing the English Catholic 'Christians'? The Catholic 'Christians' cleansing the protestant heretics? The current pope of the Catholic church? The folks in your neighbourhood that attend a church sometimes? The people that check off 'christian' on the census?

Your entire exposition gives the distinct impression that you include everyone in the whole group as 'they' and liken them not only the the very worst in the group, you even insist that the worst aren't quite bad enough(Westboro), are as bad as what YOU define their beliefs to be.

Is some lengthy theological dissertation refuting your interpretation of the bible required evidence before you'll accept that calling all christian's murders is unfair? I'm sorry I won't present you that kind of evidence in thread, but I'm quite confident you are as capable as me to quickly google for the likely hundreds of hefty books already dedicated to exactly that...

Protestants and Catholics spent a long time trying to kill each other for myriad reasons. Can you find a Catholic or Protestant leader in your area, or even your country that takes your view of things as accurate?

Poolcleaner simply observed that he appreciated being able to agree to disagree with diverse groups of people. He added a throw away comment that atheists can be the worst for disrespecting each others beliefs though. You took umbrage with that, and are still here proceeding to not only condemn theists for their beliefs, but are going beyond that and ADDING beliefs they themselves REJECT to condemn for those too.

You have to see the problem/irony in this, no?

Epic St. Augustine fact drop. That's such a good one. America has a long history of being anti Catholic though so that is also some unconscious American nationalism. Look up the post-Whigs American political party called "Know Nothing" or Native American party of the mid 1850s. This kid is my hero of the day.

SJWs are not progressive or the left, no matter how loudly they claim to be.

Odd that he tells us what is not progressive, then forgets that definition to say that progressives now work towards the opposite of his definition and that "progressive" now means oppressive.

Allowing and supporting a small vocal and zealous group co-opting a political party and changing it's platform 180 degrees by giving credence to their false narratives and claims to be 'progressive' is disgusting and disingenuous, and he knows it.
Just stop calling the SJW idiots progressives or the left, since they are neither, and the problem for progressives and the left are solved. SJWs WANT to represent the left, and the right WANTS them to represent the left (because they're easy to argue against), but they simply don't. Pieces like this only serve to support the SJW snowflakes and the false right wing narrative that the left is fascist.

He does also bring up many straw men, like Catholics being forced to pay for abortion causing birth control, they aren't and they never were, they only had to allow their employees the freedom to buy it with federal money if they so chose, but they don't want people to have the choice and apparently think that if they pay you, they have the right to control how you spend that money, what you may believe, and how you choose to live your life.

Sad that he's gone the route of supplying straw men, conflation, misdirection, misidentification, and misinformation in order to rail against something he's helping cause with those actions. It's like calling the tea baggers conservative right wingers, they weren't/aren't either, but they successfully co-opted the right by claiming they were both and the right going along because they needed the idiot vote....lets not let that happen on the left, please.

SJWs aren't on the left, and aren't progressive, they are fascists and cry babies trying to grab control of the left and progressive movements for their own means, not to further the left's agenda. Fight them, don't capitulate and slink off, handing them a political party like the right did with tea baggers.
STAND UP TO THEM.

Not that I support one or the other side of this retarded argument...

But in Aus, something like 1 in 3000 Australians of Lebanese descent were accused (not convicted) of being involved in terrorist planning/actions etc. And Australians lost their shit about it.

1 in 20 of Australian Catholic clergy have been convicted of child molestation, which closely matches a US study of 107,000 clergy turning up 1 in 24 odd. No one seemed particularly perturbed...

Pro tip: The west is more concerned about muslims/arabic types because they're brown and strange (to us), even though your child is far more likely to be molested by a pedo than he/she is to be killed in a terror attack. Though I hate using it, seems like a "won't some one think of the children moment".

Hrm, wonder if you can deport catholics back to the Vatican...

Agreed (Stormsinger), and agreed (ChaosEngine) - it is a stupid statement and that was his point. A sweeping statement that "Catholics don't believe in Hell..." is stupid and incorrect. Likewise, saying "Police are biased against people of color" is also a stupid statement - many are people of color - doesn't really address the problem or lead to a cogent discussion of how to reduce the threat to suspects or the threat to the police officers who are also killed in the line of duty.

His point is absolutely correct: there is too much empty rhetoric intended to divide public opinion and not enough real interest interest in addressing the underlying cause of the problem.

Ok, if we are talking formal boolean logic, then yes, that's a valid response, but human language is not a formal boolean logical system. This is why applying rigid logic to discussion of human beliefs and experiences is such a bad idea.

Most people are able to use life experience and simple human intuition to understand that the statement "Catholics don't believe in hell" does not mean "there are absolutely no Catholics that believe in hell" and instead is closer to "most Catholics (as a general rule) don't believe in hell".

A sweeping generalisation like "catholics don't believe in hell" is a pretty stupid statement to make in the first place.

Actually, it -is- a perfect disproof of the statement "Catholics don't believe in hell". It only takes a single example to disprove a universal claim like that. Had the statement been, "Most Catholics..." or "Some Catholics..." then you'd have a point. As it stands, he's right.

The one time he allows for a persons life experience, he gets it wrong.

"My mom is Catholic and she believes in hell" is absolutely NOT a valid response to "Catholics don't believe in hell". For someone who believes in data, that's a terrible response. It's a sample size of one out of over 1 billion. And if you were to dig up the canonical Catholic teaching on hell, that STILL wouldn't be the right data (the argument was "Catholics don't believe in hell", not "Catholicism does not teach the concept of hell". Even if you were to say "actually every Catholic I know believes in hell" that's still not a valid argument, unless you know thousands of Catholics.

I've lost a lot of respect for Sam Harris over the years and this just reinforces that.

Of course, data is important, especially when it comes to things like whether vaccines cause autism (they don't).

But if you're talking about things like how police treat black people or whether women are paid less in the workplace... the life experience of those people are a vital part of the data, especially when the data isn't clear cut.