Jesus condoned slavery, murder and stoning of children? :S

Yeah, he was a real peace loving hippie type like that.

Where in the Bible did he do that?

I took some religious study classes, and I don't recall any of these claimed occurrences. So I thought I'd do some research to refresh my memory, as I enjoy that sort of thing. Like any book written in ages past, one can simply read the Bible, and sometimes come away with an entirely different meaning than what was intended. It has to be taken in context of the era that it was written in, and the words surrounding the text should be considered as well.
Regarding slavery: Back in the days of Rome, many people had slaves. One of the more common reasons for slavery was debt repayment. Keep in mind this is the Roman law, and the Jews (which Christians first came from) had their own views on slavery. Eventually, Romans such as Claudius, Nero and others brought laws to help bring about better treatment of slaves, and more chances at gaining freedom from slavery. Christians were one of the few groups to oppose the idea of slavery, and campaigned for better treatment of slaves. Looking further into more "recent" history, we find strong examples of Christians fighting against slavery, trying to put an end to it, despite the massive financial losses their nation would incur by abolishing the trade. William Wilberforce is one popular example.)
A simple internet search shows that it was not Jesus who mentioned slavery, but Paul and the disciples who discuss it long after Jesus' death. (The New Testament begins at Matthew and Jesus is almost entirely featured in the first four books.) The disciples were of the position that slaves should demonstrate respect to their masters as a way of demonstrating love towards them, and perhaps showing the love of God in their lives. Also, if they happened to be slaves, they might use it to further understand their position as a servant before God, their master. Recognizing the existence of slavery, and that they couldn't change Roman law in a day, the disciples dealt with it by using it to further Christianity. They also called on masters to treat their slaves with an equal amount of respect.
As to stoning, I performed another search. I found no instance of Jesus supporting stoning, let alone its practice on children. On [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:1-11&version=NIV]one occasion[/url], he saves a woman from stoning, [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:25-33&version=NIV]another[/url] talks about a group of people wanting to stone Jesus for what they called blasphemy. Finally, I read an account where Jesus is telling a story that mentions some people wanting to stone a landowner's tenant. Unfortunately, in those days stoning was not an uncommon practice. Just as the Romans practiced crucifixion, so did many other cultures have their harsh forms of punishment.
No doubt, I'll be killed for actually posting something semi-positive regarding a religion, but it is certainly not the case that Jesus supported slavery or stoning. Though some would have you believe that he supported another kind of stoning... If you catch my meaning. ^_~
Regarding religious games, I must admit that most religious titles that I've seen or heard of, have been extremely poor in production quality. That part is indeed laughable.

What's the DRM like? If you pirate it, you have to confess?

I won't. I think you're spot-on for most of that. The claim that Jesus condoned slavery, murder and the stoning of children in the Bible is unfounded. I appreciate the effort you put into that research too.

Ye shall be treated as a sinful denizen of Sodom, and shall be smote hither and yon with the fiery wrath of 'Spanky Spanky'

The KJV is DRM Free - Use it to your hearts content. ;-)

That's the problem. Everybody picks and chooses which part of the Old testament they believe in, and then saying that those other folk who picked differently "aren't true Christians." Unless Christ actually said "Ok, you know what, ignore that whole part about Lot and that guy who was told to kill his son, and that guy who was tortured and whose family was killed because of a bet", how exactly do you pick and choose?

Aaawww, dangit! I played a game where you throw shoes at Bush, and one where you shoot at Osama though... would really like to try that bush capturing game hehehe

In a way that best suits your agenda, of course ;P.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you asking what is TRULY the RIGHT way to pick ? I doubt there is one.
Catholics have got it easy - the Pope is infallible, so whatever he says is the right way, IS the right way ;P.

This doesn't include a whole load of quotes that state that Jesus considers every law laid down in the Old Testament to be valid. I can dig those up for you as well if need be. Along with a ton of examples of how fucked up those laws are.
Mark 4:11-12 (Matthew 13:10-15)
Mark 7:9-10
Matthew 15:4-7
Luke 12:47-48
Ephesians 6:5 NLT

The only passage that I can see you really having issues with there is the Mark 7 one. (Especially since you quote one that I discussed already.) Looking up Mark 7, and then reading the [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:1-23&version=NIV]surrounding text[/url], one discovers that he is actually replying to a group of religious men. The group was upset because Jesus' disciples did not clean their hands before eating. Jesus is quoting this harsh example from the old testament, pointing out that if you don't keep all the laws or traditions, you fail entirely. As they have failed to keep the ancient laws, he felt that kind of invalidated the hand washing issue. He's not saying that he supports that old law. In fact, if anything, going by some of the many things he and his disciples said, he's saying quite the opposite; that there is another way, and the old laws do not work. This ties into one of the themes present later in the New Testament, which deals with how the law and covenant is said to be obsolete due to Jesus' sacrifice, etc....
It's easy to just point to random quotes, take the meaning you feel that you see, and not do the work to establish the actual context of those words. Reporters do it all the time. We can further complicate things by looking up the specific meaning behind the original Greek or Hebrew words. (This can change things quite a bit, as we view certain words or concepts in a different light, and certain words such as "love" have many possible meanings in various societies.) When looking for meaning in a text that is so separated culturally from our own, you simply can't take everything written at face value. Frankly, things are far more complicated than that. I'll leave you to your "deep investigating". I simply wanted to post an example or two of how quotes without context can be misconstrued. I'm not really one for the heated debates these conversations invariably turn into. Have fun.

I have to agree with EndlessKnight. What is Ephesians doing in your list? I asked where Jesus condoned slavery, murder and the stoning of children. Ephesians was written by Paul, and it is Paul speaking in this context - he is not quoting Jesus. Besides that, the context shows that Paul is not encouraging slavery, but encouraging believers to submit to authorities and serve diligently as if they were serving Christ Himself, "knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free." Paul then goes on to give the same encouragement to slave owners, and tells them to be kind.
Look what you gave:
Ephesians 6:5:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Look at the context:
Ephesians 6:1-9:
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
I might leave too; I'm not too keen on heated debates either. At any rate, there's another example of the importance of context.

The context being that I was originally responding to the claim that it was only the Old Testament that had such content, that it can be ignored and that the New Testament is much nicer. So yes, I did throw that one in there. Partly because I couldn't find where Jesus did actually condone slavery. I know it's in there, but I didn't have time. Essentially, Jesus marvels at a dying slave's dedication, heals him and doesn't even think to raise his favourite subject (morality) with the slave's owner.
As for your explanation, what purpose was it supposed to serve, beyond pointing out that it wasn't Jesus' own words? It's still condoning slavery. It's still in the New Testament.
I know Paul is blamed for warping the teachings of Christ and making them seem a lot harsher, but that is also something which doesn't help the validity of the Bible. It is after all stated that the Bible is written by God through man and thus is perfect. It's very clearly not.
Reading it, you're merely gaining insight into the lives and mindsets of people of that era. Nothing more. A mindset that, for instance, is perfectly okay with slavery. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned. It was perfectly natural to those people. Perfectly natural to a god that is the embodiment of good and loves his creation? Only according to the Bible.
If the Bible were written today, would it be so comfortable with slavery? I think we both know the answer to that one. So, therefore, where is the divine influence? Where is the otherworldly intellect that was the foundation for the Bible? If all we can see are the views and opinions of a primitive people then what possible relevance does it have, save for improving our understanding of history?
It's historical insight isn't helped by the lack if chronological order for parts deemed less important though. Or the parts that were (re)written centuries later. But then that's the real kicker, isn't it? How can the one true faith have been so corrupted and altered?