₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: If you agree that they did have enough intelligence to pass the test, then you also agree that their failure was on them not God. That destroys your complaint about knowing right and wrong.

The failure was on the bible god for not protecting them from satan his enemy, remember they actually obeyed the injunction not to eat until satan came and decieved them in according to the story. . .The bible god was incompetent, he didn't warn them that a person was coming to deceive them, remember they were decieved by satan according to the story, if satan had not come they would have continued to obey the instruction. . .Bible god remains an irresponsible parent. . .

They were not in an exam querying them on what was right and what was wrong anymore than your 2-year old baby is in one asking him what guns are. The situation was not beyond their capacity. Loaded guns are beyond a 2-year old's capacity. Adam and Eve knew Who God was. They knew what He said and what would happen if they disobeyed. When Satan came and made his argument, the question before them was not "is it right or wrong to obey God in spite of what Satan says?" It was "shall I do as God said or as Satan said?" Simple. Whichever they chose to do, the consequences were clear.

The situation was beyond their capacity, my two years old knows who I am and when I tell him to go and sit down quietly he does as I say, when i tell him to drop his toy he drops it , but if another person comes and gives him the toy in my absence he will take it and play with it. . .Remember satan did not come to them as a bad person, he came to them just like another person, they even told him that they were instructed not to eat from the tree, because they will die if they did, he told them that they will not die, but their eyes will be open. . .You can not blame them because they did not even know what disobedience was because they did not know that it was wrong to disobey according to the story. . .

You don't tell a 2-year old not to play with a loaded gun because he does not understand the consequences of doing so. In that your analogy failed to capture Eden. Do you want to try and prove that Adam and Eve did not understand the consequences of their actions before they took of the fruit of that tree? Remember that you have already conceded that they had enough intelligence to pass the test. If you will recant your words now, please do so with a worthy explanation.

They had enough intelligence to understand what they were told, but had no way of knowing the consequence since they did not know what they were doing was actually wrong. . .And then to go around punishing them for being deceived is just asinine, why not forgive them and give them another chance since christians always cry that their god is all merciful. . . The whole Adam and eve story as interpreted by christians is just perverted, I prefer the Jewish explanation, it makes more sense, Jews do not believe in the original since inherited by adam and the other brouhaha christians spew all the time because it just doesn't make sense, Jews see the garden of eden story as man’s elevation to a moral sense and awareness, while christians on the other hand see the eden story as the fall of man and original sin. . .The chrisdtian interpertation of the eden story shows the bible god as an incompetent parent which ever way you look at it. . .

Ihedinobi: Mazaje, I asked a simple question. "Do you suppose that they had at least that much intelligence?" Answer that before leaping into what they knew and didn't know and were responsible for.

Sure they had it, but intelligence is not enough since they didn't know the difference between right and wrong according to the story that was why i gave my analogy with the baby. . .

Ihedinobi: The bolded is all we need. Do you suppose they had at least that much intelligence?

What point did you intend to make with the rest of your post?

I can tell my 2 years old baby not to play with a loaded guy because it can kill him. . .The baby will be intelligent to know the instruction i am giving him, because clearly i do not want him to do something. . .But the baby is not expected to fully know what disobedience is because he doesn't know what it means to be disobedient at that age. . .That is why as a parent if you tell your 2 years old baby not to play with a loaded gun and still leave the loaded gun with the child people will blame you if anything goes wrong. . .Adam and eve didnt know what it means to be disobedient because they did not even know that it was wrong to disobey the bible god according to the story. . .

Ihedinobi: I fail to see how you have answered my core question with the above. Let me reiterate: how much intelligence did it require for them to pass the test in the Garden?

Not much intelligence, but how can they know that failing to obey an instruction was wrong when they did not know what it means to be wrong?

RoyPCain: @mazaje; didn't you say 'something sweet' and seemed by your statement that the sugar you chose is not 'something sweet' like dates and honey? is there any sugar you know that will not fall under 'something sweet' like dates and honey have fallen into it?

below is what you posted. so tell me where i am misrepresenting you.





where do you think the robbing of gel on; the 'outside' skin part of the cheeks or for easy and quick absorption the part of the cheeks inside the mouth?

The glucose gel is to be robbed on the premature baby's cheek. . it is not to be ingested according to the report , learn to read. . .That recommendation is very different from putting honey or date into a newly born baby's mouth. . .The recommendation was solely for babies born prematurely. . .

Ihedinobi: Regardless, what punishment are you talking about? How much intelligence is required to know that if A is God and He tells you not to do X, then you should not do X even if B who is not God tells you to do it? And if God has said that doing X brings Y consequence, would He still be God and faithful if it didn't? Why should God lie?

It means a lot because we know that people are curious and will want to experiment. . Besides according to the story bible god just gave them his instruction yet he still allowed his enemy to go and deceive them into disobeying him. . .Will you allow your enemy close access to you kids?. . .They were obedient according to the story until satan came and deceived them . . .Will you keep a loaded gun beside your 8 years old child after warning him of the consequence of not touching it and at the same time allowing your enemy that wants to do you bad access to your child and the gun?. . .why or why not?. . .

Image123: Which brings us to the real point. The words tree of knowledge of good and evil, and tree of life have different meanings from what we would naturally or literally think them to be. Having life is a different concept in the Bible compared to what you think it. Having knowledge of good and evil is a different concept in the Bible compared to what you think it.
Adam and Eve were no ignoramuses. They were probably more brilliant and competent than any man presently alive, in our concept of brilliant. They were two people capable of maintaining a garden of Edenic status, and with a size that is irrigated by four rivers. A knowledge of agriculture and of geography might help you a little here. Today, with all our gadgets and automated stuff, i doubt if two people can successfully managed a plant or factory or garden of that magnitude. Adam had the intellect to name all the animals in the earth, many renowed men of knowledge can only manage one new specie in their entire lives, perhaps many do not value the importance of taxonomy anyway. Eve was so trained that she could communicate with animals, perhaps you need to train one animal to some extent to understand that such job is not for mor.ons.

Are you crazy. . .How did Adam name all the animals and in what language?. . . .Hope you know that animals are named only after they have been discovered. . .Why are there different names to the same animals in different languages if Adam named all the animals?. . .How can you be talking about ancient Jewish mythology as if its true?. . .Na wah for you ohh. . .

Image123: And you are aware they would have had life if they had eaten the tree of life, right? Do you know that Bible God considers you as dead if you are not His child? Are you dead?

I am just stating what the bible says to ihe. . .The bible remains a book of myth. . .What am i to do with the fictitious bible god character and what you believe he thinks of me. . .he remains a fictitious idea and that's where it begins and ends. . .

RoyPCain: @mazaje; have you known any sugar for that is not in the class of 'something sweet'? why are you trying to classify sugar as if it is not from the 'something sweet' family as honey, dates are?

if you have 'bitter' sugar that can be called not from the 'something sweet' family like dates or honey, let us have a look and the manufacture will have to be you, deserving a nobel price for chemistry, for sure.

what exactly are you on about?. . .didn't you see where date and honey was written, i copied the definition from the main article itself. . .The thing is the research was focused on babies born prematurely and they the recommendation is for the gel to be rubbed on their cheeks not to be ingested , how that comes close to putting date or honey into a new born baby's mouth is what i don't understand. . .The same science says honey is bad for newly born babies. . .

Ihedinobi: The Bible said that? Where, if you please?

Regardless, what punishment are you talking about? How much intelligence is required to know that if A is God and He tells you not to do X, then you should not do X even if B who is not God tells you to do it? And if God has said that doing X brings Y consequence, would He still be God and faithful if it didn't? Why should God lie?

The bible clearly says they did not know the difference between right and wrong before they ate the apple they only knew it after they had eaten the fruit . . .Here is bible god speaking after they had eaten from the tree according to the story. . .

Gen 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Bible god decided to drive them out of the garden after knowing good from evil so that they will not eat from the tree of life and live forever. . .

This is completely misleading. . .When does rubbing sugar gel on a baby's cheeks equate to putting dates or honey inside a baby's mouth?. . .The research said the gel is to be robbed on the baby's cheek, which can serve as a treatedment for a baby born prematuredly, that is completely different from Tahneek which is putting something sweet, such as dates or honey, in the child’s mouth when he is first born. Putting honey inside a newly born baby's mouth is harmful to the baby. . .

Ihedinobi: Plaetton, religion has been ridiculous to you for awhile. Haibe didn't say anything that has bot been said in other arguments with you. This matter of faulty moral dna's is nothing new either. It has been explained to death that the power of choice made man able to reinvent himself as he pleased and pleases. Without it, man would be something other than man.

God did.not create any faulty dna. Man did. And man's children inherited it. God is not in the least at fault in the matter.

Really?. . How did man do it?. .

Ihedinobi: (1) & (2) above are based off of the same assumption that Adam and Eve were too inexperienced to handle the test of Satan's influence. My answer is, if we can assume that they were created physically adult, why can we not assume that they were created intellectually and psychologicaly adult too?

We can't because the bible clearly says that they did not know the difference between right and wrong before they ate the fruit. . .They knew the difference after they had eaten the fruit. . .Why punish someone when he dos not even know the difference btw right and wrong. . .

Different explanation and opinions from different people all geared towards explaining mythology away. . .SMH. .

Mr Troll: @Ajibam, can you define religion for us here? Pls do that so we will be clear on what we are dealing with. This claim of Christianity not being a religion needs to be debunked once and for all. I'm waiting. . .

Seconded. . .

ariseandshine: Romans 9:13.
While Esau was yet in his mothers womb and had committed no sin, God said he hated the poor guy but loved Jacob.
There is nothing new under the sun. God knows the end from the beginning. Its called predestination. You can't question God but you still have a choice to make and God knew that Esau will make the wrong choice even before he was born.
So what choice are you making? Scoffing the word of God!!! God knew you will do this so he predestinated you to be an atheist.

And when did any god personally tell you anything himself?. . .You just keep regurgitating the writings of other men whom you have been indoctrinated to be the word of god and you accept it hook line and sinker without thinking. . .He is not scoffing at the word of any god because no god has ever written anything or told any body to write anything on his behalf. . .Men wrote those things for various reasons and ascribed it to what ever god concept of god they invented. . .If the bible is the word of god then the koran and the hindu verders are also the word of god as well. . .

Repentance: finally u av made ur point u belief in science bt remember that it would be so stupid if on the last day u found out that all u were told abt God were true nd u never believed!

It will also be stupid if on the last day you found out that all you were told about allah is true and you never believed. . .

ariseandshine: If the atheist is right then i have nothing to loose. But what if the scriptures are right, where would the atheist be?

What if the muslims are right?. . .where will you be?. . .

Mr anony: Using your analogy: In the case of a company that sets opening time at 8.00am, this law transcends the employees but not necessarily the business owner. However let us for the sake of argument assume that the employer and employees both agree to be bound by that time. The law will then not transcend them, it will also not be binding upon them since such a law, they can easily agree to change it.
Do you hold that the same applies to moral laws? Can people come together and decide to change moral laws? Because if you think they can, then tomorrow someone can decide that it is now right to kill innocent people and he won't be doing anything wrong.

Isn's that how all humans laws are made?. . .laws are made through consensus. . .People come together to formulate what ever law they want to abide by and which ever law they believe will make their society less chaotic and give people a sense of fairness. . .

No body can make stupid laws like deciding to kill innocent people because it isnt fair and will lead to chaos in the society, but laws are changed all the time. . .It used to be a crime to be gay in Denmark at a time, now its not. . .Laws are always changed, all abortions used to be illegal in some parts of the world, now in the same parts abortions are now legal etc. . .laws are debated upon, points are made, fairness is measured, a consensus is reached and then it becomes law. . .That's how humans created all the laws they live by today. . .No god has ever created any law for humans to live by any time and any where, humans created the laws and in they past they used their various gods and religious elites as an enforcing mechanism. . .

MAYOWAAK: The history of the world over centuries is littered with dead religions, dead gods and dead worshipers. In some ways, we are all children of a retired god. Key events in the world always retire religions and their gods. Traumatic world events always prove the old religions inadequate. The coming of the Europeans, for instance, essentially laid to eternal rest a lot of the African gods. Other events and movements like the Enlightenment reform religion. Reformation extends the life of a religion. An irreformable religion is one that is bound to implode.

The tragedy of Africa is that it reached the information age without first passing through the industrial age. In matters temporal, Africa got to the modern age without passing through the Enlightenment. That is why some people believe that a child was born holding a mini-Koran in its hand, or that a child came out of the womb holding a cross in its hand. Why mini-Koran? Why a cross? Why something we already know? Why does this kind of phenomenon only happen in societies that wallow in superstition? If it is a message from God, as some believe, why won’t God use the opportunity to send a definitive manual of life?

The Enlightenment instituted the culture of demanding empirical proof before believing. If a woman comes into the church and gives birth to a dead horse, you don’t clean up the floor and bury the horse. You send the horse to the lab and the woman to the hospital- mental and/or medical.

Every religion that comes begets a new one. Two hundred years from now the people that will occupy this world will look at our era and our religions that we fight for and die for and call our age the Extreme Dark Ages. In another two hundred thousand years, nobody will remember what god we fought for, killed for, or died for. Just like we have no idea what god the people who were on this earth 100,000 years ago fought for, killed for or died for.

It is hard to imagine it now, but after the Third World War and after a nuclear war, a new world will emerge with new religions. The old religions left standing will go through reformation. And subtly and gradually, new religions will replace the old. Because it takes hundreds of years for this kind of transformation to be visible, it is hard for those living in that age to notice the change as it happens. We won’t wake up one day and notice that our religion is dead.

It is hard to live without the concept of God because it is hard to live without an answer to the original questions, even if it is not definitive. That is why many will stick with their religion as if it is their parents. Virtually all religions place God beyond reach- at times above the sky. Do you know why? If God is within reach, God will suffer the fate of all parents – be critiqued and be seen to have fallen short.

The trouble with religion is that for every religion to survive and gain members and fend off competitions, it has to proclaim itself to be better than the others. That my religion is better than yours is like saying that my moon is better than yours. That my God is better than yours is to say that my sun is better than yours.

To be willing to fight for your God- which is to say, kill and die for your God, is like to climb on top of each other to pull the moon until it stands still on your side of the sky. It may sound silly but it has been done before and continues to be done.

Those who worshipped the Greek gods used to believe that they had the final answer. Those who worshipped Oduduwa used to think that their story of the creation was the ultimate. The highest level of human stupidity is the belief that our religion is the final answer to these original questions- who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? Who made me? The arrogance of that assumption has no equal in human folly.

Religions come and go but the earth remains the same. Until we know the definitive truth about the very beginning; and until we answer the original questions without a doubt, religion will remain attractive. But religion will continue to promise us that we find the answers only when we die. Science is the only one trying to find answers to these questions while we are still alive. And science is the only one trying to get to the very beginning and empirically show it to us for the very first time. It may take science one million years to get there. But I am rooting for science not religion.

This has to be the post of the year on NL religion section. . .

@ Logic boy, black people did own slaves from other tribes before the white man came albeit on a small scale. . .

truthislight: What ?

Yahweh is PERFECT !

That you are so blind without a sense of Justice, is it my fault ?

That it flew over your head that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites first without provocation killing innocent children and women and men/slaves from Egypt, untrained in war fare, is it my fault ?

Is comprehension your problem ?

Cant you read in your previous post up there that Yahweh had asked an innocent nation(Kenites) to move away from the Amalekites to avert them being destroyed also ?

Were the Amalekites innocent as charged ?

That you have hetrade for Yahweh that you cannot keep his laws is whose fault ? Mind ?

Abeg, shif !

Your sense of Justice is leaking >> basket sense of Justice.

Who cares about what you think and accused Yahweh of ? your kind i suppose !

Smh

Screaming that a Jewish tribal deity is perfect doesn't make him so. . .You guys claim your god isw all god and my point is the god portrayed in the bible is not all good simple, he is evil even as acknowledged by the bible, he confess of his own evil deed and even apologized for it in the book of Isiah. . .

By the way the story about the Amalekites is actually non historical and remains a Jewish mythology. . .

truthislight: What is all this fancy talk all about where the universal sovereign is concern ?

Are you the one that sets his standards for him ?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" (Exodus 20:4-5).
.....................

^
Is he supposed to owe his creatures any explanation concerning his actions, by the way ?


what Imput did the creatures input befor they were created ? Where then does this 'right' to question Yahweh comes from ?

In my company, i can hire and fire any body that does not abide by my layed down rules and regulations, did they open the company for me ?

Rebels !

That he decides to answer question and gives explanations and reasons for his actions at all is just because of his higher standards.

Who told you it is democracy ? Rebels !

You cannot even question human dictators but because the universal sovereign tolerate such questions(though he is not obliged to) you take advantage and over do it when his Judgement was purely based on Justice smh.

What is all this rant all about?. . Is your god good or not?. . .Human dictators are not good. . .A dictatorial boss is not good. . .Here we are talking about a supposedly all good god. . .Or do you now accept that your god is evil?. .

thehomer: Aah my friend mazaje. I'm not letting Mr anony get away. I'm not buying his rubbish claim of figurative speech but because I'm not interested in hermeneutics since anyone can torture the Bible to say anything, I've left it up to him to show that what he claims to be figurative speech is actually figurative speech. If you give him enough time and the rest of that passage, I can guarantee you that he will torture something strange out of the chapter.

LOL! . . .

@ Thehomer

Why do you keep allowing anony to lie to you about figurative speech nonsense?. . .Just read the bible and show him how wrong he is. . .The story clearly stated that they killed every thing that was weak(women, infants, babies including weak animals) but kept those they felt were strong for themselves, and for failing to obey Yahweh commandments for total annihilation Yahweh got angry with Saul and regretted making him king. . Read the story and stop listening to anony and his lies. . .Yahweh was even angry that he did not completely annihilate them. . .

1Sa 15:6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt.
1Sa 15:8[b] He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive,[size=18pt] and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword[/size][/b].
1Sa 15:9[b] But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calvesfn and lambs—everything that was good[/b]. [size=18pt]These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed[/size].
1Sa 15:10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:
1Sa 15:11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.

1Sa 15:15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

1Sa 15:16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” “Tell me,” Saul replied.

1Sa 15:17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel.

1Sa 15:18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘[size=18pt]Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out[/size].’
1Sa 15:19 Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”

1Sa 15:20 “But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.

1Sa 15:21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”
1Sa 15:22 But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”

Mr anony: I don't know if you realize that "have to obey" means that they are under the authority of a higher moral code which transcends them and therefore they must obey.

You keep repeating this fallacy of higher moral code, how is it a higher moral code when it was set up by men?. . .When a company sets its opening hours by 8 am and tells every body that works in the company to abide by it and obey it(both employer and employee ), does that mean that the company has set a rule that transcends them because they must obey it?. . .It is just something they have set to serve as a guide line and make sure that business is done properly. . .Same with moral laws, men sat down, created and and set all of it to make them live in a less chaotic and peaceful society. . .

Imagine this conversation

A: Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?
B: Because it is wrong to punish the innocent
A: Why is it wrong to punish the innocent?
B: Because it is wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person
A: So wait, come again. . . . Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?
B: Because it is wrong to punish the innocent
A: And why is it wrong to punish the innocent?
B: Because it is wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person
A: Sorry no vex, explain to me one more time . . .Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?
B: As I said before....Because it is wrong to punish the innocent
A: Ok and why is it wrong to punish the innocent again?
B: Because it is wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person
A: Ok seriously now.....Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?

Have you spotted the circle yet?

Nope, your anology is quite daft because the answer has already been given, that you don't want to accept is your own business. . .

Question: Why is it wrong to kill somebody for the crimes of another person.

Answer: Because the person is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed for what he is innocent of. . .

Simple, any thing is is your own convoluted logic that makes no sense at all. . .

Mr anony: If men are not under the authority of any moral law, then they do not have to obey any moral law.

Men have to obey moral laws because that is what guides them and make them live in a chaos free society with each other.

Lololol.........My point exactly. Saying X is just wrong doesn't make it so unless you can show why X is wrong.

I have shown why it is wrong. . .Killing someone for another person's crime is wrong because it is wrong to kill the innocent. . .

bizmahn: After all the nonsense you all spue at sensible replies from the religious, you folks'll whine that christians avoid your threads.Certainly you all prove over & over again that your threads don't deserve any reply from any sensible christian.Au revoir.

Pls stop using the word sensible because there is nothing sensible in any of the nonsense you wrote up there. . .

Mr anony: To say that something is "simply wrong" implies that there is a code of behaviour that "simply is" which transcends man and which man has a duty to uphold regardless of his preferences i.e. All men are under the authority of a higher moral law. Is this what you are implying?

It simply is because if it is not adhered to there will be total chaos. . .It doesn't have to transcend man because men use it to maintain a just society and live in a society without chaos. . .Men are not under the authority of any higher moral law since all moral laws were made and created by men. . .

If it is not what you are implying, then I'm afraid "X is simply wrong" is an insufficient answer here.

You have failed to show that it is insufficient. . .Saying something doesn't make it so unless you can show it it makes it so. . .

Mr anony: God was not misrepresented by Samuel. God commanded the Israelites to attack the Amalekites in punishment for their sins. This event was recorded in using the figurative expressions common to the people of the Ancient Near East. It did not literally mean "kill the innocent babies".

A modern example:
I prophesy: thus says X "It will rain cats and dogs tomorrow". If it rains water heavily tomorrow, the prophecy is not void and I didn't misrepresent X. For a person not coversant with modern day English, I'll simply explain to him/her that the expression was figurative and didn't literally mean cats and dogs.


Lololol, of course it is.

You are a dishonest person that will tell any lie in the book to further your belief in mythology.I remember the lie you came up with when i showed you the discrepancy btw the genealogy of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, your lying excuse at that time was Luke used a word that could loosely be translated as ancestor when nothing close to loosely translated was used there, the translators used the best word that carried the best meaning, but as usual you went with your lies that it could loosely be translated as ancestor, if we were to use your loosely translated nonsense it will still have no meaning at all, must you tell lies all the time? Now you are coming with the nonsense that it is ancient near east expression. . .We can also say that Jesus crucifixion is ancient near east expression since Jesus was not the only messiah at that time and he wasn't the only one that was crucified. . . Can't you just be honest?. . . . .Why do you guys do this?. . .I remember William Lane Craig saying that the Jews that wrote the heinous stories in the OT got it wrong, they wrote what they believed happened and said that it was god that told them when god didn't tell them to do those things. . .How dishonest can one be. . .

Image123: Any evidence to the contrary?

Its just a claim, where is the evidence?. . .

joel lala: To the bolded, True but that means religion is not really the actual cause of man's problem then since there are other numerous reasons why man will always continue to fight himself.

Religion is part of man's problems. . .Without it there will be one less thing to fight over and one less problem. . .There will be many other problems without religion but humanity will get rid of one of its problems and source of conflict. . .

BTW, how will you feel when you wake up everyday in a world where there are no worships( inluding deity worship in paganism, buddism etc), no celebrations/festivals (christmas, oro/ Eyo festival, Arochukwu festival, muslim festivals)..How do you feel when you are down and you have that urge to hope and pray for something but you cant knowing that there is no God.

I used to live in Denmark where I hardly see people worshiping anything. . .People don't go to church there, christist has now evolved into a holiday. . . .No worship no religious festivities and life is just normal. . .How has prayers ever helped to solve humanity's problems?. . .Nigeria is the most prayerful country I have ever lived in, every body prays all of the time, people even pray when they attend parties and celebration, people pray before they travel, go to the hospitals people are every where praying for healing etc. . .It has produced no result so far. . .One of the highest road accidents despite all the prayers before embarking on journeys, one of the highest mortality rates, curable disease kill millions every year. . .We pray all the time but prayer has failed us completely because it has not and will never make us great. . .Countries where people do not pray have a very functioning system. . .