boring!


[img]http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-15546598.jpg?size=572&uid={2c9ba326-6d64-46eb-b575-18d5a63119dd}[/img]

Too Many Irrational Nonsense to address. I was wrong about you. Your state of delirium is better imagined. All i can offer now is a first aid to cure your un waivering delusion ( but i go try sha, e go hard though!)

Quote from: Sun God on Today at 12:58:24 AM
Hmm let me see!

1. How many atheists do you know that has won an election?


Joseph Stalin, Hitler . . . just to mention a few of your heroes.

Hmm, i guess this is the beginning of your lack of research to back up your falsitude aptly demonstrated by christians.

Just to help you understand that hitler was a religious man, i have a clip from wikipedia to help you know that you just jumped the gun and decided to spew out rubbish.

Christianity

Drawing on higher criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated "Positive Christianity", traditional Christianity[citation needed] purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,[23] but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[24] In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."[25]

As Protestantism was more open to reinterpretations, especially Positive Christianity, and a non-traditional re-reading of sacred scripture, and because some of its liberal branches had similar views, Hitler, still a nominal Roman Catholic, demonstrated a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism.[26][27]His views were supported by the German Christians movement, but rejected by the Confessing Church. According to Steigmann-Gall, Hitler regretted that "the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped;"[28] and he stated according to Albert Speer: "Through me the Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England." Not all the Protestant churches submitted to the state,[29] which Hitler said in Mein Kampf was important in forming a political movement. Hitler supported the appointment of Ludwig Müller as Reichsbischof over the Protestant churches, hoping that he would get them to adhere to Nazi positions. After 1935 Hitler was advised by the newly-appointed Reich Minister for Church Affairs Hans Kerrl.[30] Many Protestants who were not persuaded by argument were arrested and their property and funds confiscated. Hitler said of the Protestants "you can do anything you want with them, they will submit, "[31]

Now how can you open your mouth and say hitler wasnt a religious man abeit a christian before he later waged his war against other denominations but never waiving from the fact that he was a christian?

So much for a lame defense and embarrassing your self in between

As for Joseph stalin, i have proof once again that Stalin was affilated to a religious movement

The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. An Act of Canonical Communion was signed on May 17, 2007, followed immediately by a full restoration of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate; there remain some issues not fully healed to the present day.

The fact that Stalin had a religious pact with the The Russian Orthodox Church is enough to counter attack your claims that he was fully atheist. His war was against other denominations but not the The Russian Orthodox Church.

So please go and verify your facts before you come out here and bamboozle neutrals who would have just taken your word for it. We rations verify every single bloviate written or said by religious fundamentalists and you just disgraced yourself with your poor knowledge of history and facts.

Quote from: Sun God on Today at 12:58:24 AM
4. How many atheists can come out in public and say they don't believe in god and they are not looked down upon like AIDS patients


atheists already have books and websites dedicated to them . . . u must be in denial.

In case you didnt read the question correctly, i asked "How many atheists can come out in public and say they don't believe in god"

I didnt ask how many have written books or hide behind their keyboards?

( Fickle minded) For every 10,000 or probably 100000 openly declared christians or muslims, you might find only one that can weather the storm of criticisms. Maybe you have forgotten a certain salman Rushdie so quickly who wrote the satanic verses and a fatwa was placed on his head for decades, pffsssss!

Quote from: Sun God on Today at 12:58:24 AM
5. How many atheists do you know that can question any of the pastors and imams and not get stoned, burnt, imprisioned or killed


Reserve this question for the mooslims . . . who burnt, imprisoned you or threatened u with death for rubbishing the bible? It seems to be everyone's pastime today eh . . . even Dan Brown has made millions from it and he aint dead yet.

Rubbish!

Common miss world beauty pageant they almost held in abuja because of one statement accredited to mohammed led to the worst violence, deaths and injuries abuja has ever seen by those illiterates who call themselves rational muslims. Talkless of whats happening in the middle east today and sub sahara africa.

Fyi Dan Browns book never questioned the authencity of the existence of jesus. He only made allusions to mary magdalene and the connection with jesus. An atheist would never ever recognize the existence of a certain jesus christ. So please check your facts again. Its becoming painfully shameful.

Quote from: Sun God on Today at 12:58:24 AM
Please my friend, you have nothing to say. In case you don't know, the people that fight to ban prayers in public places are religious fundamentalists of a different faith that are trying to protect their territorial grounds.


Your incoherent rambling disguised as "having something to say" is hilarious. Dont make a fool of yourself, i don't remember anyone being bothered about whether u're an atheist or not.


Quote from: Sun God on Today at 12:58:24 AM
Wasnt it the largely french christian dominated parliament that fought against a great one girls wearing the hijab in schools?


No, it was a fight for secularism.

Oh thats funny, but you forgot to add that christian catholic nuns are still allowed to wear their veils and roam the streets of paris 24/7, Hmm, some fight for secularism!

All we do is ask rational questions and if you can't answer back, then your delusional. Q.E.D.


a question like "when last did an atheist get elected to office" doesnt sound rational to me.

Really! What a subtle way of dodging the question. How many people get elected in the u.s and say they are not affilated with god and have the opportunity to win elections?

Hmm isnt the u.s government advocating that the 10 commandments should be placed beside the flag as a national monument?

Look at sub saharan Africa and tell me who has gotten into power for just being rational and not affilated to any religious group?

So much for the question not being rational to you because the staus quo suits you just fine, Hey you a christian so Bleep it, whenever someday i choose to run for office, i can use that as my trump card and get the evangelicals to endorse me, sounds pretty convient.


The remaining one line quips are not worth replying because apart from being nonsensical in nature, its quite appalling e.g asking me to slap the secretary or Dump the chic or , too many senseless things you wrote not worth replying.

Like i said before, your delirium is better imagined and next time please stop convoluting fables as evidence. It only would just expose your ignorance more and it could be quite shameful

olabowale:

@Sun, : Jesus is not a personality that you can poke fun at. He is my prophet and I have a great and true love for him (AS).

Hey according to christians, jesus is the son of god right?

god made nature right?

Nature includes trees and leaves right?

You can harvest leaves and smoke them right?

So if jesus is the son of god

and god made man and leaves

which alternatively can be turned to weed and be smoked by man

who invarably is an image of god

and jesus is the son of god

why cant both man and god enjoy a good smoke of weed?

Beside is it wrong to taste his own product and get high?

Please i dont like it when you say i am mocking jesus. We are just sharing his fathers product that's all.

And i love him too for making the leaves that we can make weed from. By the way isnt god so omniscent that he knew that by making that leave, man kind will someday use that leave to make weeds that will make us high?

justcool:

Here you are just making an assumption. If no body on this planet should argue that bob Marley never existed, then on body on this planet should argue that Jesus never existed. What makes Jesus story different from bob's story in terms of wheather they existed.
Have you ever seen bob Marley personally? The answer no. (Yet you believed he existed.)
Have you ever seen Jesus personally? The answer is no. (But you refuse to believe HE existed.)
Have you ever seen any evidence IE works that bob did when he was alive? The answer is yes, you hear his music and you are told that the music was made by bob. (Yet you believe he existed)
Have you ever seen any evidence ie works that Jesus did when He was on earth?. The answer is yes, you hear his quoates -- the beatitude-- and you are told that words were said by Jesus. (But you refuse to believe HE existed)

So the question of bob and Jesus are not entirely different. The same evidences that convinced you of bob's existence are also present in the case of Jesus. But in His case you refused to accept. Therefore accept that fact that it is a question of choice on your own part for you cannot convincingly prove that either party ever existed nor otherwise. In this case we employ our common seance and our intuition because intellectual logic will lead us now where.
In any issue, there are as many reasons for it as there are as many reasons against it. Therefore reasoning that is not guided by the intuitive perception will lead us only in a circle. In your case you let mare choice guide your reasoning, and this is not a refined way to arive at a conclusion

You can also attribute all you said above to bob Marley's case, yet you chose to believe that he existed.

(No eye witness accounts that can be verified)
can you verify any of the witness accounts of bob Marley's life? Please do so

(No historical records that make sense)
the same can be applied to bob. Infact there is controversy about his actual date of birth which was supposedly recorded.

(Convoluted stories that are side splitters)
the same can be applied to the different biographes of bob

(Widely unimaginable things that christians said he did)
the same can be applied to bob. Some of his biographers claimed he did so many "unimaginable things" ie he could tell the future; he was a prophet; he could lead palms; he fought the devil.

(The list is endless abeg!)
abeg so is the list of things attributed to bob, Hitler, ID amin, and the every figure in history.

(Anyway, thumbs up for a respectful and brain stimulating debate. I appreciate it. thats what rationals do. Ask questions and query them till they get it right!)
Thanks. I also respect you for your obvious intelligence. But I have to warn you that the intellect should only be used as a tool. For any issue, there are as many good reasons for it as much as there good reasons against it. We chose to accept any line of reasoning based on many thing. Some people, by mare choice, other by predisposition but the advanced person chooses his line of argument by his intuition and commonsense.
Thats why people go to school to learn to be a judge -- to learn to use their commonsense to guide their decision and not remain a slave to reasoning and logic. Suffice to say that the truth in any issue should not be wanting in logic, but logic. Everything could be logical, depending on the way you look at it.

Let me put it in a very simple way.

1. Bob marleys children are still existing

2. His grandchildren are still existing

3. I may not have witnessed bob marley live but he is always on Mtv and my mom did attend one of his concerts in england in the 60's or 70's and has a back stage picture to prove it.

Now what i am saying is that from all this rich source of knowledge, it is very very easy for bob marleys name to still ring a bell for centuries to come because there is proof physically.

4. Now i am not disputing that that various biographies of bob marley wont be re edited and redracted over the coming years but it doesnt change some salient facts about bob marley that all men would agree on. e.g

His awards are there for history to see

his schools are still there

his former band mates and children of the band mates

His siblings and so many things which you can point to and say bob marley existed

But jesus doesnt offer any of those proofs.

He was neither recorded as any special being and roman laws then were very meticulous to record all events.

the birth, miracles, apostles, cruxificion, ressurection, ascention and what have you have no basis for believing any of it because it is wasnt there in the first place.

Even if you take jesus out of the picture, the stories of the multitude he fed and preached to would have some way attracted attention that one of them out of the thousands could actually be traced through his geneology.

But till today, not one, not a single one of the thousands and thousands of people he came across can actually be verified.

Even the gospels have been discovered not to be the works of the original disciples because the dates contradict themselves.

My friend proof means tracing history till your fed up and you give up. Till date, nothing has been offered as a sign of proof of his existence, Why then should i believe such psychobabble?

heeeeeeeeeee!

Its fun seeing irrationality at work.

Timel out guys, lets all smoke some weed together with jesus:



Ok time in, Continue the religious accustaions and counter accusations, heeeeeee

olrotimi:

imagine this to be Sun God's signature.any one gone thriugh his recent posts? any correlation?

Yikes! I guess since none of you Religious fundamentalists have anything up there to refute historical and scientific arguments to refute the rationality of the bible or koran, it would not do me any harm to make fun of your delusional state until i meet someone that can profer worthy rational arguments otherwise.

I would be wasting my time trying to be sane with you as my boy "bawomolo" as advised me. You guys need a healthy dose of mockery and innuendoes in your lives before you wake up from your highly advanced state of delirium.

Common question about the possibility of noah's ark being a reality has brought about the densest of answers from so called sensible christians and you expect me to be as rational with imbeciles with such moronic views, lol

This is laughable to say the least !

let me hurry along before you finish me with one of your curses and wrath ridden passages from the bible!

ouch i guess some is really getting edgy with all this jesus mumbo jumbo, lol

Wow, this must be some powerful "second class citizens

Hmm let me see!

1. How many atheists do you know that has won an election?

2. How many atheists do you know that grown up around you

3. How many atheists do you have as friends

4. How many atheists can come out in public and say they dont believe in god and they are not looked down upon like AIDS patients

5. How many atheists do you know that can question any of the pastors and imams and not get stoned, burnt, imprisioned or killed

6. How many times have you seen a questionnaire that includes all the religions and adds atheisms

7. How many families can openly accept their kids are athiests

8. How many athiests can marry into a religious home

Please my friend, you have nothing to say. In case you dont know, the people that fight to ban prayers in public places are religious fundamentalists of a different faith that are trying to protect their territorial grounds.

Wasnt it the largely french christian dominated parliament that fought against muslim girls wearing the hijab in schools?

The removal of the A.D to B.C.E was largely because of the gaffe christian scholars recognized in their distorted history so as to save face and not necessarily an atheist movement change.

All we do is ask rational questions and if you cant answer back, then your delusional. Q.E.D.

Abeg stop distorting history or facts and start thinking rationally.  

olrotimi:

Lepers & Second Class Citizens? Because i don't believe in your Religion and ask Questions? So much for "Love your neighbour as your self"!
Posts: 37

Online

Re: Which Church Do You Attend
« #29 on: Yesterday at 11:58:42 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I belong to the Rational Response Squad.

Our motto is: If you believe in god, we can fix that problem or delusion for you

We believe in rational thinkings and analysing things through human reasoning and common sense.

We celebrate a lot of (un)holidays like


1. Christ-My-Ass day

2. Eostere sunday

3. Excellent Friday

During our congregation we engage in the blasphemy debate and challenge, e.g you can say F***k jesus or Moses is a Dick Head and chill out without any bible wielding nut job raining the wrath of romans 3 v 8 on you and condemning you to the gates of hell and all that bullshit!

In fact this is one of the posters we share to our esteemed delusional christians, lol




ordinarily, shouldnt give much attention to jips like you.think you belong to the unfortunate few who believe the MECHANIST'S THEORY

4Him:

Easy does it mr. no one is arguing with you . . . or telling you not to excercise your freedom of expression.  
I'm just saying not to burst a nerve in the process . . . u seem to be taking it a little too personal especially as you already believe Christ does not exist.

Oooh! Some people are feeling edgy already, lol

Guess you dont like it when the people say u worship a delusional being huh!

hmm, let me see how i feel (Before i burst a nerve again)  

1. I wake up in the morning and hear some freaking Imams disturbing my ear lobes and constituting an early morning    public nuisance. Nobody except me seems to notice and its freaking normal, because they are praying to this freak of nature:





2. Switch on the t.v and the first thing you see is a televangelical programme trying to distrupt my early morning news

3.  Open my gates and guess what an early morning jehovah witness trying to hand me some chick tracts pamplet in a watch tower form

4. If by some freak of nature i end up taking the public bus to work, i get totally subdued by one raving lunatic preaching all day and raining thunder and brim stone about the wrath of god and hell.

5. Get to work and the lunatic secretary is trying to organize a 15 minute praise worship to start off the day and inviting me to join in unless business wont move ( As if the stupid prayers had improved the fortunes of the company anyway)

6. Stupid figure heads all claiming to be some form of clergy men as business men come to the office and start praying for the owner and saying all form of shit blocking my ears.

7. Get home from all the madness and once again prayer before supper

8. Okay about to sleep, prayers before sleeping

9. Ok am done with the prayers, you get a phone call from an irritaing chick begging you to attend serve with her on sunday

The least goes on and on and on with all this media and personal hoopola about jesus , mohammed and whatever infilterating my ears all day and haranging me to pray with this or sing with that.

Now since i have joined the Rational Response Squad i am enjoying myself now getting back at the fundamentalists with so much happiness and peace of mind and your saying i am devoting my energy to this and breaking a nerve?

Please compadre, i am having a ball. Just the way you irritated me all my life with these psycho babble, i would definately irritate some people. It might not be you for now but i am definately going to make one or 2 people see reason why they should bitch slap anything that preaches the bible or koran near them ever again till they wake up from their delusions.

Now when ever i hear one of those twats preach to me about jesus, this is what i see:

4Him:

Funny that those who claim to believe that God doesnt exist shld waste so much time struggling to blaspheme and thrash the very concept of theism.
How will u spend half your life ranting about someone who doesnt exist?

Hey cut us some freaking slack, Just the way christians love to do their praise worship and engage in their psycho babble of speaking in tongues so as to entertain themselves and become pro active, we too just like to keep our selves busy and just create fun for the sake of it.

Since we dont really know how to engage in psycho babble talk in aramic, we can take solace in the fact that we can say bullshit about virtually anything we want and the issue of god keeps creeping up mysteriously, lol

And as you fundamentalists say, when 2 or 3 people are gathered together, god is there, so we have to give god something he would remember for a long time. Its just a habit we R.R.S love to enjoy, nothing sinister though, lol




Thats an example of our pictural blasphemy debate, Hope you can solve this little puzzle for us, lol

I belong to the Rational Response Squad.

Our motto is: If you believe in god, we can fix that problem or delusion for you

We believe in rational thinkings and analysing things through human reasoning and common sense.

We celebrate a lot of (un)holidays like


1. Christ-My-Ass day

2. Eostere sunday

3. Excellent Friday

During our congregation we engage in the blasphemy debate and challenge, e.g you can say F***k jesus or Moses is a Dick Head and chill out without any bible wielding nut job raining the wrath of romans 3 v 8 on you and condemning you to the gates of hell and all that bullshit!

In fact this is one of the posters we share to our esteemed delusional christians, lol



For more info log on to

http://www.rationalresponders.com

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Osiris As Their Personal Saviour

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Buddah As Their Personal Saviour

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Allah As Their Personal Saviour

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Zeus As Their Personal Saviour

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Horus As Their Personal Saviour

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Vindu As Their Personal Saviour

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Sun God As Their Personal Saviour

Woe To them That Refuse to Accept Santa Claus As Their Personal Saviour



If you dont accept all these gods as your personal saviour, then that automatically translates that your also an atheist because the defination of atheist does not mean you should believe in only the christian god. Once you dont believe in any of these other gods, you will most definately be condemned to damnation into the Hells of these respective gods.



I hope you can see how silly your post is. Typical Moronic christian fundamentalist.

I Know it is because i disgraced you so embarassingly and bruised your ego in the other threads thats why you came up with this ridiculous post hoping to mock me, lol

As i said, The joke will forever be on you and i would continue to mock and embarass you till you leave that state of delusion you currently habour about christianity.

Personal Savior ko! Personal Body guard ni!

May kelly:

THE FOOL'S MESSAGE

Psalm 92:6 ,
The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand,

Psalm 94:8 ,
Take heed, you senseless ones among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?

Psalm 107:17 ,
Some became fools through their rebellious ways and suffered affliction because of their iniquities.

Proverbs 1:7 ,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 1:32 ,
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of[b] fools [/b] will destroy them;

Proverbs 3:35 ,
The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame.

Proverbs 10:1 ,
A wise son brings joy to his father, but a foolish son grief to his mother.

Proverbs 10:8 ,
The wise in heart accept commands, but a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Proverbs 10:14 ,
Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.

Proverbs 10:23
A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom.

Proverbs 11:29 ,
He who brings trouble on his family will inherit only wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise.

Proverbs 12:15 ,
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 12:23 ,
A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.

Proverbs 13:16 ,
Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

Proverbs 13:19 ,
A longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul, but[b] fools [/b] detest turning from evil.

Proverbs 13:20 ,
He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm.

Proverbs 14:3 ,
A fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them.

Proverbs 14:7 ,
Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.

Proverbs 15:2 ,
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.

Proverbs 15:7 ,)
The lips of the wise spread knowledge; not so the hearts of[b] fools. [/b]

Proverbs 15:14 ,
The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Proverbs 17:16 ,
Of  what use is money in the hand of a fool, since he has no desire to get wisdom?

Proverbs 17:21 ,
To have a fool for a son brings grief; there is no joy for the father of a fool.

Proverbs 17:24 ,)
A discerning man keeps wisdom in view, but a fool's eyes wander to the ends of the earth.

Proverbs 17:25 ,
A foolish son brings grief to his father and bitterness to the one who bore him.

Proverbs 18:2 ,
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

Proverbs 23:9 ,
Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.

Proverbs 24:7 ,
Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the assembly at the gate he has nothing to say.

Proverbs 26:1 ,
Like snow in summer or rain in harvest, honor is not fitting for a fool.

Proverbs 26:4 ,
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

Proverbs 26:5 ,
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Proverbs 26:6 ,
Like cutting off one's feet or drinking violence is the sending of a message by the hand of a fool.

Proverbs 26:7 ,
Like a lame man's legs that hang limp is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.

Proverbs 26:8 ,
Like tying a stone in a sling is the giving of honor to a fool.

Proverbs 26:12 ,)
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Proverbs 28:26 ,)
He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe.

Proverbs 29:9 ,
If a wise man goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.

Ecclesiastes 10:3
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is.

Ecclesiastes 9:17
The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools.

Ecclesiastes 7:5
It is better to heed a wise man's rebuke than to listen to the song of fools.

Wow Mary Kelly! You have out done yourself this time!

All these biblical quotations all for me? Damn, Your good, but i am better and will always be one step ahead of you in the game !

Am sure Christian apologists have been grining and flashing a huge smile with these words of woes unto me, hmm

Ok time to make you shut up and make you wonder how such a god can do all the following:

Keep in mind that its only your god and the bible i am quoting verbatim and unlike christianity, i am not fabricating anything.



Now if you think SUN GOD is bad, i am about to expose your biblical heroes as the KING PINS OF NEFARIOUS ACTIVITES AND ROLE MODELS OF EVIL AND SHAME

These individuals who are not only well known but committed a wider assortment of dis-speakable criminal activities:


[size=16pt]ABRAHAM[/size]--

told his wife to lie (Gen. 12:13), , Bloody Liar


debauched Hagar, his maidservant (Gen. 16:4), , Pervert

sent his maidservant and her child into the wilderness (Gen. 21:14), Very Inhumane

lied (Gen. 20:2),, Still Polishing his lying skills

married his half-sister (Gen. 20:11-12);, Freaking Pervert and Incestous in nature



[size=16pt]SAUL[/size]--, Another bible favourite



used his daughters as a snare (1 Sam. 8:20-21 NIV), , How Cruel can one be? Using your kids as a Trap?


ordered gambling (1 Sam. 14:42), , Now why do christian pastors denounce Gambling?


killed (1 Sam. 15:7-8, 20, 22:18-21), , Murderer


stripped himself and acted unstable (1Sam. 19:24), , Lunatic and Mentally Deluded


admitted he sinned, played the fool and erred (1 Sam.26:21), , Hmm, Let me see, huh, He sinned ok big

deal and he was a fool ( Contrary to mary kelly's quotes that i am the only fool, lol)


gave David's wife to another man (1 Sam. 25:44), , This give is a Porn freak


transgressed God by consulting a medium and being unfaithful (1 Chron. 10:13-14 RSV), , This guy actually consulted native doctors!



GIVE IT UP FOLKS FOR DAVID.THE ROLE MODEL OF CHRISTIANS THAT WE ALL GREW UP TO KNOW BUT THE PASTORS CONVIENTLY FORGOT TO REMIND US OF THESE NEFARIOUS DEEDS OF OUR ESTEEMED HERO!


--[size=16pt]2. SOLOMON[/size]--, Another bible favourite


ordered murders (1 Kings 2:25 RSV, 2:34, 46), , Hmmm God seems to like Murderers a lot


tried to kill Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40), , Attempted Murderer too ( not bad)


enslaved people (1 Kings 9:21 RSV), , ( Wicked Man) No wonder a lot of Nigerian christians love the houseboy/ house girl syndrome, They learnt it from Solomon, lol


did not keep God's statutes or covenant (1 Kings 11:11 RSV), , And your saying SUN GOD is Mocking god when god's own favoured child rebelled against him, lol, How hypocritical can you be


did evil (1 Kings 11:6), , Why am i not suprised?


lied to his mother (1 Kings 2:20-21 RSV, 2:25), Now what happened to the honor thy mother and father commandment?


SOLOMON IS DEFINATELY A GOOD ROLE MODEL TO FOLLOW! Solomon my hero!



Now the King pin of them all. The ANINI, ABACHA, HITLER AND EVERY NEFARIOUS LEADER YOU CAN THINK OF:


--[size=16pt]. MOSES[/size]--,

According to 2 Chron. 30:16 Moses was the Man of God; yet, he,


murdered an Egyptian (Ex. 2:12), , god loves these murderers so much


ordered an armed attack (Num. 31:3, 6), , loves to go to war, i see him as a george bush reincarnation


ordered the murder of prisoners (Num. 31:17), , Only Wicked Dictators do this. , Abacha, hitler, Pol Pot, Charles taylor, ( A club of infamous leaders)


ordered the keeping of young female prisoners for several reasons (Num. 31:17), , Hmmm, i think he was just sex starved


led mass killings of women and children (Deut. 2:34, 3:3, 6), , Does a certain Hitler and Saddam ring a bell?


ordered killings (Deut. 13:15, 20:13), , Damn, wont this jerk just chill out for once and stop the Killings

blasphemously wrote he was a greater prophet than Jesus (Deut. 34:10 NASB), Hey, when 2 imaginary elephants fight, you definately dont know who to believe


had a son out of wedlock (Ex. 2:21-22), , Randy Hot fellow!


was excluded by God from Canaan for four different reasons:

unbelief (Num 20:12), , And your calling SUN GOD A FOOL

rebellion (Num. 27:12-14 RSV), , Hey Moses, we can make you the leader of the Rational response squad if your still interested mate, lol

 
trespassing (Deut. 13:51-52), , Now why would a holy man attempt to tresspass?


rash words (Psalm 106:32-33 NIV), Hmm i see where Mary kelly gets her Inspirations from




David, Despite all of the above, no individual in the Bible had a more disreputable, more scandalous career. Although the recipient of numerous accolades:


He killed (1 Sam. 17:50-51 RSV, 18:7, 27, 19:8, 23:5, 30:17, 2 Sam. 8:1, 2, 5, 13),

ordered murders (2 Sam. 1:15, 4:5-12),

ordered prisoners to be killed (2 Sam. 12:2931, 1 Chron. 20:3, 2 Sam. 8:1-2),

committed unprovoked aggression and mass killing (1 Sam. 27:8-11, 2 Sam. 5:20, 25),

gave up seven of Saul's descendants to be killed (2 Sam. 21:1-6, 9),

requested that Joab be killed (1 Kings 2:5-6),

intentionally arranged for Uriah to be killed in order to seize his wife (2 Sam. 11:14-17),

displeased the Lord (2 Sam. 11:26-27),

impregnated another man's wife, committing adultery in the process (2 Sam. 11:2-5),

wasn't allowed to build God's house because he was a man of war and bloodshed (1 Chron. 22:7-,

lied (1 Sam. 21:1-2, 27:8-10),

told Jonathan to lie (1 Sam. 20:5-6),

admitted he sinned by taking a census (2 Sam. 24:10, 17, 1 Chron. 21: 8, 17)

committed extortion (1 Sam. 25:2-,

prophesied incorrectly in his heart (1 Sam. 27:1),

sent out a spy (2 Sam. 16:36),
hamstrung horses (2 Sam. 8:4),

locked up 10 concubines for life for no apparent reason (2 Sam. 20:3),

committed bigamy (2 Sam. 3:2-3),

committed polygamy (2 Sam. 5:12),


despised the word of the Lord (2 Sam. 12: 9-11),

admitted he sinned by causing Uriah's death and taking his wife (2 Sam. 12:13-14),

exposed himself like a pervert (2 Sam. 6:20).


Anyone approaching the Bible for goodness, decency, role models, and morality, enters at his own peril. The Bible is a festering pit of evil.

The Bible is so full of contradictions, in so many different areas, it is astounding how intelligent people can still claim it to be inerrant. One must wonder to the level of mental scaring such lies they tell themselves has caused.

The Bible claims, ", and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16) With all the contradictions of the Bible, is it a wonder why this has never materialized?

Any way one can easily understand how a book as inconsistent as the Bible has given rise to more that fifteen hundred separate Christian denominations. The deficiency lies not so much with the preachers as the book from which they preach.

Please Mary Kelly, be kind enough to post more christian passages. I would love to exchange more with you because i have got tons of them to give you.

Once again, Mary kelly, your no match for me. I know your ego has been badly bruised but you asked for it!

May kelly:

Specially made for you - sun god.

Take Note


Psalm 92:6 ,
The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand,

Psalm 94:8 ,
Take heed, you senseless ones among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?

Proverbs 1:7 ,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 12:15 ,
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 1:22 ,
"? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 3:35 ,
The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame.

Proverbs 10:14 ,
Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.

Proverbs 10:23 ,
A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom.

Proverbs 13:16 ,
Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

Proverbs 14:7 ,
Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.

heeeeeeeee! Another typical emotional response from a christian apologist that has nothing to say but rain curses all ordained by the almighty god, lol

Have you for once thought of the foolishness of your quotes and the silliness of the "god is perfect" SYNDROME?

How can one so merciful, kind, loving, wonderful and humble, be so vile, bitter, angry and wallow in the comfort of insults and takes so much pride in insulting and raining curses at every chance he gets

There is no difference between a mad man i see on the road that arbitrarily insults and curses people and god because they both share the same thing!

THEY ARE BOTH INSANE!  

Like i told you earlier on Mary kelly, you have been disgraced and dishonorably dismissed. Dont make life any harder for your self by concluding with empty threats and raining insults as a last resort.

You ought to have known that: Who ever gets into a debate must be armed with concrete facts to prove a point. The fact that i destroyed all your silly arguments and made you look like a sheep doesnt mean you have to conclude with something so irrational as selecting biblical verses that makes me even know further that only primitive Albanian goat herders can write this sort of bullocks.

Anyway for a final comment, dont ever step on any Athiests toes and engage in a debate, (EVER IN YOUR LIFE) because they wont be as moderate and kind as i have been with you.

P:S: Since we are on the topic of quoting silly biblical verses, i'll help shame you and you bible more in the other thread concerning noah and his imaginary ark, lol!

So go over there and recieve your present gleefully

@just cool

First thing first, please sort out your key board malfunction. The only reason i am replying this post is because i believe you have been rational in your discuss that is why i have also refrained from using profanities to address you unlike the other posters here.

Now from the little i can gather from your posts, you said the basis of the argument was whether god exists or not. I have been explicitly clear that i dont believe in god and especially the christian god and i remember in your earlier post you tried to make me understand that i shouldnt use the bible as a basis to denounce the existence of god.

I later replied back that there was no way i can denounce the existence of god if i dont refer to the fallacies in the bible or koran and i explicitly said i have a terrible bias fro the christian god because 80% of my research has been basically on the fallacies of the bible and why?

Because its what i was brought up to believe and it was shoved down my throat from birth.

You later on brought the issue of the slab and i respectfully refuted the allegation of the slab and told you why it doesnt hold water in the mist of atheists and gave a classic example of a leading archeologist in nazarian matters that has been exposed as a fraud.

Now your basing your arguments on various issues most notable the slab and i would gladly denounce them again one by one and with reasoning as a basis for it.

Your mistake is that you bassBaser agumargumentsopinions and discdiscoverieshisthistoriansearcheologist's_If you think that the slab issue has not been validated by histhistoriansn tell me how historians validate findings. What is the formal procedure for this. And show me where they validated any of your claims. Historians report thietheirdings which seldom conclusively prove anything thing. An educated historian or an achearchaeologisthis report will always say: "BassBasedthe most recent discoveries, NassNazareth not been or has been forufoundhis does not mean that NassNazarether existed nor does it comfirm that it exisexistedis is how educated poeppeopleoapproachh issues -they dontdon'te bugubogusims about something bassbasedexcaexcavationsfew centcenturies no dinadinosaursfossil yet found, but that does not mean that dinedinosaursndidn'tst.

From what i can gather, you would like to know the procedure for validating the work of a historian.

Generally when a discovery has been made or accredited to a historian, it generates a buzz media wise and people talk about it. Up till that moment, it doesnt have any credibility except on the hearsay rule amongst scholars.

The discoverer must then present his work to a group of esteemed historian scholars or archeologists who would then engage in a long and brutal rigourous research to validate the claims.

It includes but not limited to the following:

1. Tracing the year the object is deemed to belong (Which takes a lot of time and energy)

2. Tracing the history and characteristics of the discoverer

3. Subjecting the object to rigourous scientific tests which might include carbon dating and so on

4. Exposing the object to geologists to discover and investigate the soil or waters or whatever where it has been found

5. Try to discover what the object has in connection with other pieces of history and what culture used them and why it hasn been found till date.

6. Exposing the object to intense criticisms from skeptics so as to come to a final conclusion

And a host of many things that i cant remember right now.

The last piece of evidence that underwent such scrutiny that i can vividly remember was the "Scroll and gospel according to judas". For almost 4 years or so, scientists, historians, geologist, archeologists and critics from all works of life converged in switzerland in a lab to each verify its authencity till the scroll passed the test of time and is widely accepted as being an original piece ( Though not as a writing of judas per say but as an origianal work of a pseudepigraphic).

What was generally accepted by all was that it is an old scroll and it can be traced to a certain century and the kind of people that were living at that time including the style of writing. The message still remains unvalidated but it can be regarded as an archeolgical find.

I have gone through this procedure to show you what goes on in determining whether something is historically relevant and acceptable to historians and works that can be deemed as mere spoofs.

Therefore the slab has not gone through this rigourous process by scholars to verify its authencity and until it has been published in a highly credible historical journal, it remains and continues to remain an unsubstianted discovery and should be dismissed summarily.

Also your allusion to dinosaurs is still on shaky grounds because its not everyone that has bought the story of dinosaurs and thats why scientists have problems forcing the world to believe they really existed because the proof is not yet conclusive.

Although its still sketchy in some ways, they have at least tried to document their discoveries with some reasonable proof but as i said, its still early days to sing hurray for them. Even evolutionists have a theory which is still widely unsubstantiated but everyday, they are out on the streets looking for more physical proof to nail home their point. Compared to the religious theory that god just came out from no where. Common!

This makes the evolutionists more credible than the religious creationists. Why shouldnt i query such a fallacy more than the evolutionists?

Going back to the issue of Nazareth, My reference to the bible to query its existence comes directly from the bible itself. The basis of christianity starts with the birth of jesus in Nazareth. Now, if the bible hadnt made allusions to Nazareth, why should atheists bother to wonder where such a place exists? It still leads back to me using the bible as a reference point for my argument.

Imagine a christian coming up to say, god was born in planet Uranus and he created the other 8 planets and so on and so forth, uranus will definately be on the radar to discover its authencity. Just the way scientists talk about the big bang, critics and biblical creationists will forever question the source of where that big bang came from especially from the point of view of the scientist who first claimed it occured in that way.

So Nazareth has become a widely debated topic and up till now, no body has given any rational answer to why nazareth wasnt in existence at the time jesus was born which in turn questions the nativity story.

Here you're commcommittingnder in your logic. This is a "Logical and Factual Error" you cannot validate an issue bassbasedsomtsomethingt you dontdon'tieve ever exsiexisted I go to court and tell them that Mr X never existed. Then when I am asked to provide a withwitnessan issue, I cannot use Mr X as a witness because I dontdon'tieve his existstance. You cannot base you agurargumentt Jesus never exsiexistedthe inconsistencies of the Bible. You should not even bring the Bible in your arguments because you already stated that the bible is false. Also, the bible should not be a source of knowknowledgee bible is only a written acouaccounte Bible and Jesus are two diffdifferentngs, and the fact that the bible is incoinconsistents not prove that Jesus never exsiexistedke I said, the incoinconsistencythe bible should not validate your argument because you dontdon'tsider the bible a valid witness.

Once again your very wrong in your choice of argument.

1. Before i say something doesnt exist, there must be a form or name of an object which i am de bunking as non existent.

If i say snufflejoyagus taro doesnt exist, the first thing you have to wonder at first is " what the hell is snufflejoyagus taro". You dont have to engage me in an endless debate over something that is nonsensical to you and has no meaning or shape or form to begin with.

2. But if i say Shakespear didnt exist, Then the burden of proof is on me to expatitate more, because shakespear is well known to alot of people and they have heard or seen him at some point or read his book somehow.

3. Because Shakespear lived and has some historical statistics to back up his existence, my argument must fail. because for everytime i say somthing to denounce his person, reference would be made to how he lived, the type of clothes he wore, his school, friends, colleagues and poems he wrote or read either in the prescence of people or hobbies he engaged in.

All references will definately come from a source either personally or through an eye witness account that has been verified over the years.

Remember, i wont have brought up Shakespear if i havent heard of him someway either by sight or sound.

4. Now compare it to the existence of zeus. Roman pagans refered to him as the ultimate god. He was attributed with all the goodness of life and maker of life.

5. Some people began to ask questions over the years over the existence of zeus in real life. Alot of arguments ensued and counter arguments but it ultimately had to fail at the end because it couldnt be substantiated by fact, reason or logic. It was just mere belief in something imaginary.

6. In this situation, all the pessimist had to do was say, "Zeus doesnt exist, his story is a myth" and the burden of proof shifts to him to denounce such existence and he would lay most of his evidence through the existing evidence of zeus worshippers that contradict themselves.

7. Just like you said, in law, the burden of proof lies on whom alledges such a fact and the evidence to be pleaded must come from the source he is alledging to be untrue or the fact that he is trying to disprove.

8. Now coming to christian god, the bible says god created this and did that. ( christians have made a fact and it remains a fact until it has been deemed to be untrue)

9. atheists have come out to challenge that fact asserted by christians that god exists. Definately, the rational thing to do is to investigate that fact that has remained a fact all these years and has been judicially noticed by the court and generally accepted by man.

10. If in the process of validating that fact, you end up finding contradictory and illogical reasonings in it that doesnt make sense in the mordern day era, then that fact begins to lose its flavour until it has been expunged as a fact.

E.g the 6th commandment in the bible says thou shall not kill. christians held on to that commandment for centuries until mordern day times when killing could be justified as either self defence, manslaughter or aggrevated murder and just plain murder. Now by changing the laws to suit the needs of time, a rational man would say, why are the christians not obeying the commandments hook line and sinker? As long as its gods law, it should be followed by the book.

The moment someone chose to query the usefulness of that law, it began to lose its flavour and relevance in mordern day society

11. The same rule applies in our everyday lives in court , "Innocent until proven guilty"

12. All this while the biblical facts have been termed as innocent. Not there is total proof to show that its is mostly untrue and in the eyes of atheist, christians are guilty of this farce.

13. Now whose duty is it to convince me that is true? Me or them?

Here you are missing the point again. The issue is not wheather Bob Marley claimed to be perfect or not. I used Bob MaleMarleyan example because both Bob Marley and Jesus share the same problem-- the problem of having many divergent acouaccountsthietheires and actions. If the fact that the divergent and incoinconsistentuaccountsBob MareMarley'se does not disprove the fact that he exsiexisteden the same should be applied to Jesus. The inconsistencies and different stories and acouaccountsJesus life is not a prove that Jesus never exsiexisted

This is still not an issue. bob marley existed. Plain simple. The biographies may be diverse and controversial but no body on this planet would argue that bob marley never existed. jesus is another story entirely.

Its a plain Hoax!

No eye witness accounts that can be verified

No historical records that make sense

Convoluted stories that are side splitters

Widely unimaginable things that christians said he did

The list is endless abeg!

Anyway, thumbs up for a respectful and brain stimulating debate. I appreciate it. thats what rationals do. Ask questions and query them till they get it right!


@ziontrain

Fellow Nairalanders,

Why do you bother engaging with losers in unprofitable arguments. Abeg ignore this Sun god and let him rot in hell if that is what he wants. No use trying to convince a cynic. When he dies he will find out albeit too late that Jesus really exists. Let him talk all the trash he wants to talk here. Answering him is like giving him recognition. I think he should just be ignored.

Coming from a zionist, i am not suprised. You reek of the delusional mentality that your fellow christian apologists shamefully smell off. You dont offer any form of excuse or debate to exchange ideas instead you resort to what you and your christian cohorts know best, emotional responses to a pitiful and widely disgusting defense.

Just cool and I have been having a respectful debate. In as much as we disagree in our views, he has shown to be someone of class that i respect and has shown to be a worthy debater which i definately would learn from.

Unlike you, a morose empty barrel that carries a stigma of a religion he cant even define or place on a solid footing but can only rely on the stupidity of emotions and hallucinations of hell.

By the way, have you ever thought of it that if the reward for doing gods work is going to heaven, definately if i am doing devils work, i also should get a reward. At least according to the christian fable, they are both royalties in some way. King of hosts and prince of darkness.

In fact you should be more worried about the devil because your not doing his work and if god ends up rejecting you from heaven, Damn, The Devil will be all over your ass in a jiffy!

Posted by: 4 Play  
Insert Quote
Look at the 20th century.More theists have died at the hands of atheists in Communist nations, for no other reason than believing in the supernatural ,than atheists who have died in the hands of theists for their beliefs throughout the history of humanity.

Maybe some atheists need to educate themselves on history before trying to spread ignorance

Rubbish again!

This post is even sillier than the other one.

1. hitler was a catholic and he was the architect of the holocaust and the worst crime ever known to man this 20 century

2. Charles taylor is a christian and we all know what he did in liberia and sierra leone

3. George bush, nuff said

4. Gowon and Ojukwu, biafra war

On the islamic side

1. Osama bin ladin

2. Idi amin

3. the sudanese government and somalian govt

4.Abacha

5. saddam hussein

The list goes on and on and on

How can you compare the atrocities of atheists to the massacres commited by people who believe in a silly religion?

Maybe they got their vote of blessings from god and allah who was also mass murder. So like father like son!


@ cassiel

Also considering the fact that Christians are a nicer and more tolerant set of people.I think you should try going to a fully hijab-populated country to criticize them,and see how fast your tongue gets ripped out of your mouth.Or India to criticize Buddha for that

1. Thats a bloody lie. What tolerant? Do you think tolerance deals with only violence or tongue ripping? What about you being termed a second class citizen? What about you being demonized by every one around you because you wont part take in the "Our father" prayer at dinner? What about you being segregated because you dont really believe that jesus rose from the dead? What about you being in a worse of situation than gays and ever one treats you like a pariah or leper? Who would stand up today and say he is running for office and declare "am an atheist" and would win that election?

So please dont preach tolerance upside down and assume it means killing me or stoning me because i blasphemed. killing me ends up making me a matyr for a worthy cause but looking down on me for the rest of my life is even worse and thats why atheists are fighting back to regain that honor.

Tell me how many atheists friends you have that say it openly without being reprimanded in some way? Tell me if you end up having an atheist boyfriend and you intend to marry him, you would feel comfortable bringing in to a largely religious home?

Please spare me that emotional jack! Its time to stand toe to toe with human beings and if we are to be respected, we must expose and attack that institution that has made us second class citizens for a very very long time.

2. Anyway as for your explanation god that exists, lol, this is the funniest defense i have ever heard but it still doesnt prove that god exists.

Its just like saying i see father christmas all around me and last night the god zeus and god venus helped me change my life, oh! look i saw god posiedon riding on pegasus in a chariot of fire and he came into my heart and i sang to him and he told me that god osiris made the heavens and earth and i should worship him because his son Horus would soon come and die for my original sin, lol,

Just the way this story sounds ridiculously silly to you is the way i relate with the story you just told me about god, lol They both dont make sense!        

Anyway just like you concluded, i find it sad that you believe in all this hocus pocus. But someday i hope rationality will give way to delusion

4 Play:

I think you are spewing so much horse hockey,you must be reeking in it.Atheists that pick on Christians do so because most of them live in Christian dominated countries or traditionally Christian nations whose history of relative tolerance has allowed atheist literature to flourish.

None of these "brave" atheists will try such nonsense in Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,Burma or even India.If the M'uslims don't get them,Hindu or Buddhist nationalists will perform some emergency amputation on them.

Rubbish!

How many atheists have come out to denounce either buddism, hindu or islam? The truth is that most of them feel comfortable with what they believe in and they very much believe it and whenever they question the doctrines, it just a repugnant part of it that generates public outcry and the authorities do their best to settle it either rationally or foolishly, but the fact remains that a large percentage of them believe in it and am fine with that.

The other religions are not as nauseating as christianity that tries to force outsiders to compulsory believe in them and stage countless evangelical rallies world wide to induce converts.

Compare such horse shit with western christians that infiltrate the air waves, neighbourhood, schools, government and what have you to ram rod this pile of horse shit down your throat. You dont see buddist going to Europe en mass to propagate buddism in all totality, you dont see hindus screaming out of their throat going from continent to continent to scream "Come join us and be saved by jesus"

But with christianity, you see it everywhere. From the missionaries taking over the world to george bush starting his unholy crusade to try someway to infuse christianity through western education, culture and politics in the middle east.

Christians have always been the harbingers of religious domination by force. Its either you accept jesus christ or your an outcast.

Dont you see the reasons islamist fundamentalists are trying to preserve their religion by taking it to the western countries with violence so as to halt that western controlled media of propagating christianity into their homes?

It has nothing to do with were i was born and from what i can tell about Nigeria, the 2 major religions include islam and christianity and i dont see the islamic movement rushing to Enugu or Calabar to start an Islamic campaign to dominate them there and hold religious rallies there.

But it is very easy for christians to rush to kano, kaduna and a host of northern states to preach the word of god there and invite reinhard bonnke or benny hill to stage grossly unbelievable christian miracle healing rallies there so as to convert more muslims to christians.

I attended a islamic secondary school for a while in Lagos Nigeria and i was suprised that despite the school being predominately muslims, apart from the early morning islamic prayers, they didnt force non muslims to part take in any thing islamic and did things quietly on their own.

Compared to the catholic primary school i attended that would force all students whether hindu, islamic or pagan worshippers to part take in the ash wednesday ritual ceremony on your forehead compulsorily, make sure all students participated in the baptism classes or catheism classes, force everyone to recite at least a decade of the hail maries before and after school hours and enjoin all students to partake in the nativity play. The most annoying aspect was when the bishop came, he would organize a mass for every student and sprinkle holy water on everybody.

That aspect of being considerate about other peoples faith is totally lacking in christianity, hence the sudden bias to research and know whether this unprovoked christian conquest is worth it.
So your argument doesnt hold water and as you said, its a just a pack of horse hockey!

Cassiel:

I concur.
@sun god
Why involve yourself in something you don't believe in? Leave it be for those that believe in the existence of Jesus. Because controversial history or not,He does exist. And though it saddens me that you don't believe in God,it is still a free world.So get rid of all that hate and channel it into something more productive.

hmm intelligent words but still missing the cardinal point. Atheists dont just wake up and start critizing people unduely. How many atheists do you know that bash hindu, buddist and to an extent islam the way we bash christianity?

Its because christians are the most irritaing and annoying of all the religions. Their get in your face attitude everytime makes it very very difficult for someone to be treated as an equal if you refuse to be born again or give ur life to christ.

They mock you, make fun of you, gossip at your back and threaten you with prayers and curses from the bible because god decreed it to be so and when you remotely tell them quietly that your not interested, damn, your the days topic for discuss where ever 2 or 3 people are gathered.

The sheer hypocrisy has led to a group called the Rational Response Squad to counter attack these claims and expose christians at every given opportunity we have. They have tormented and waged a calumnious battle against non believers for centuries till today and its time to shut them the hell up for good!

As to your funny statement that god exists, i just need to ask you back, "HOW DO YOU KNOW" ! There is no proof. Admit it and we are square.

justcool:

In 1962, a 15 cm x 12 cm marble slab with four lines of inscription in Hebrew square character was found by Israeli archeologists in Caesarea, indicating that priests from Jerusalem were assigned to live in the village of Nazareth in Galilee. The slab bears the first non-Christian mention of Nazareth and is dated from the late 3rd or 4th century AD. This suggests that Nazareth at least existed around the time the Gospels started to be transcribed.
Dr. Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land has been conducting excavations in Nazareth since 1996, and claims to have found pottery dating from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, associated with agricultural terraces and wine presses [1]. Based on this evidence, Dr. Pfann argues that in the 1st century, "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over six acres (2.5 hectares)" [2].
(Wikepedia)

@Sun God
How would you explain the passage above about the existence of Nazareth?

@justcool

1. I can safely tell you that the discovery of the slab you said was discovered has not been validated by historians in any way and until it has been validated it remains a ruse.

2. Even if i remotely believe the slab for one second, the slab doesnt point to any physical evidence apart from saying it directed priests to stay in Nazareth. It simply makes no sense at all. The question is does narzareth exist as enuciated in the bible? No! The scriptures doesnt talk about priests in that village or imaginary town and even after a very torrid investigation in the 1930s, Catholic scholars themselves noted with alarm that “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” was found in the venerated area of Nazareth (that is, where the Church of the Annunciation and nearby structures now stand)

3. Also your post from wikipedia argues it from the point of christian apologists but from the same page, this is what i also got:


Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[52] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[53]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.


So we are just back to square 1 which is even more damaging to christians because his arguments relates to the nazareth in the bible and the very existence of it.

4. To go back to your earlier point about the man who discovered pots, i just want to assure you that he's just one of the numerous "fakes" parading themselves as archeologists discovering this or that from Nazareth.

I have a classic article that exposes the shenigans of one of the so called respected archeologist who discovered a shell from nazareth and the contradictory claims that ended up being his water loo

[center][size=17pt]The dishonest shell game with the Nazareth evidence [/size] [/center]

Our eyes should be opened when the primary archaeologist at Nazareth (Bellarmino Bagatti) assigns an artefact on one page to the IRON AGE (c. 1200 BCE-c. 600 BCE), and a few pages later assigns the same artefact to the MIDDLE ROMAN PERIOD. The difference, of course, is 1000 years. . . Was the priest confused? Inattentive? Inebriated? Unfortunately, his error is hardly unique in the Nazareth literature, and points up the need for a wholesale reassessment of the primary data by neutral, objective archaeologists.

The main source for scholarly information on Nazareth is the 325-page book Excavations in Nazareth by the Fr. Bagatti (English edition 1969). This book is considered the definitive study of Nazareth archaeology and is repeatedly cited in the scholarly literature. It is no small thing, then, when one reveals Bagatti’s book to be full of blunders.

One could study Bagatti’s book for months and not realize anomalies such as the following example, which becomes apparent only if one makes a written itemization of the hundreds of artefacts in his work, as I have done while researching The Myth of Nazareth. The example I choose for this Scandal Sheet is the following:

(a) While discussing pottery of the Iron Period (1200-587 BCE) Bagatti comes to a v-shaped piece of pottery which he calls a “rim of the vase.” (For those with access to his book, it is on page 269, item 215:7.) He also diagrams this pottery shard in his figure 224.1. Bagatti continues his discussion, “Other elements of the Iron Period…” So, there is no question at all that the archaeologist considers this shard to be from the Iron Age.

(b) On page 282 of his book, in the section discussing “Pottery of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods,” Bagatti notes “fig. 224.1” and “fig. 215.7” (the same references as above, both referring to one artefact). Evidently he forgot that a dozen pages earlier he called the shard the rim of a vase, for he now calls it the neck of a “cooking pot.” More importantly, Bagatti is oblivious to the fact that he earlier assigned this artefact to the Iron Period. Now, on p. 285, he writes: “The oldest element of these cooking pots appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224… The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts.” So, we see that on one page the archaeologist assigns a shard to the Iron Age, and on another page he assigns it to the “Hellenistic-Roman” period.

Our confidence must be shaken in an archaeologist who ascribes the same material to two eras separated by up to a thousand years. Doesn’t Bagatti know what he is talking about? Or is there something more nefarious at play, something which goes beyond error? For we see that the priest’s use of the word “Hellenistic” on p. 285 is entirely inappropriate. He signals the typical Roman features of this jar, not Hellenistic ones! It would appear that the archaeologist has simply found another excuse to falsely introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his book.


For a village of Nazareth to have existed at the time of Christ, it had to come into existence before that time. That is why Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth is so important. It is also why Bagatti has, as seen in the above example, contrived to falsely introduce the word "Hellenistic" into his book. In fact, every one of his uses of that word is inappropriate, for there is no Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth! This is clearly shown in Part Three of my study.

In a subsequent Scandal Sheet, I will show how more Nazareth artefacts have been falsely called “Hellenistic,” thus furnishing more bogus evidence for a village at and before the time of Jesus. All those artefacts do not date before the time of Christ, but they are Middle Roman (second-third centuries after Christ).

Folks, we've all been spoofed!
—René Salm

from the above its not today we have been seeing fake and untrustworthy claims trying to prove the existence of nazareth. So sorry mate, your brief defence is largely unsubstantiated and it still remains a fable.


5. Also you stated that:

You cannot deny the existence of Jesus based on the inconsistencies found in the Gospels. The Gospels are only written accounts. If you base your argument on the gospel then you might as well be a religious person. But I am of the opinion that you don't believe in the bible. If so, you should leave everything about it alone. You shouldn't use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to prove something IE that Jesus never existed.

I think this quote is laughable because the bible is the central theme of this falsehood. If christians go around bamboozling people to believe the word of god and its the word of god and god is perfect and omiscent and all that crap and referring to the bible as its source of credibilty, doesnt it also make sense to investigate that source of knowledge?

For example imagine a senator fighting against exam malpractice amongst students and wages a terrible war and campaign against cheaters and tells the whole world that while he was in harvard he never cheated and because of his self righteousness, people end up finding out that he does have a record of cheating while he was in harvard, wont that be a reference point to shut him down and dump his campaign of calumny?

Thats what christians do everyday and every gaddam minute in our lives. Always bugging everyone to be a christian, always bugging everyone to follow the work of christ, always quoting one passage of the scripture or the other to convince you, always inviting or forcing you to prayer meetings or night virgils, always scaring you with frightening passages of the bible to follow god, always involving god in everything we do from our currency down to how we eat and shit, always condemning you if you dont become spiritually filled or being born again, The list goes on and on and on until you are fed up with all the barages of christian attacks and for the sake of peace and hypocrisy, you finally succumb till they get off your back temporarily.

When then shouldnt atheist unleash their own war and campaign to expose christians for the scammers they are? Why shouldnt we investigate the so called word of god to know whether any of it is actually true or worth while? Now that we have ventured into the taboo of questioning god, they all run away and scurry off like puppies into their kernels without any tangible defence to support the earlier "First attack".

So my friend, the scriptures will forever be a reference point to point out the contradictions and farcades being perpetuated by christians until we expose them for who they are.

A lot of people in history have inconstant versions of their lives and existence, does this mean that such people never existed. Read shakespears biography from different authors, you will see inconsistencies. Does this mean shakespear never existed. Even Hitler who lived less that a century ago, in his biography so many historians disagree and give divergent accounts of his childhood, upbringing, and lifestyle. Do these inconsistencies mean that Hitler never existed?
I have three different books on the life of Bob Marley, they all differ in so many things and these books were written by close associates of Bob Marley, even family members.

The boy from Nine mile -- written by Bob's mother
No woman no Cry --- written by Bob's wife about three years ago
Marley and I -- written by Don Taylor. Bob's former manager
Catch a fire -- written by Timothy white

Do the inconsistencies in these books about Bob Marley's character and lifestyle prove that Bob Marley never existed?

To summarize this point, all these people never claimed to be perfect, all knowing, ominiscent and demanded me to worship them and pray to them 24/7 lest i go to hell and burn there for eternity. The bible on the other hand makes allusions to all that. There is a big difference between attacking bob marley and attacking the imaginary jesus

[center][size=22pt]PART 2 ( THE HEROD FALLACY AND THE RUBBISH CENUS FABRICATED BY CHRISTIANS)[/size][/center]

Mary Kelly quoted thus as a very very weak embarassing defence this passage:

Luke 2:1 
[ The Birth of Jesus ] In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

ABOUT King Herod And the BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST THE MESSIAH


Matthew 2:1 
[ The Visit of the Magi ] After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi [ Traditionally Wise Men] from the east came to Jerusalem

Matthew 2:3 
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Mark 6:14 
[ John the Baptist Beheaded ] King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying, [ Some early manuscripts He was saying] "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him."

Luke 1:5 
[ The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold ] In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

Acts 12:1 
[ Peter's Miraculous Escape From Prison ] It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.

Acts 12:20 
[ Herod's Death ] Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there a while. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. Having secured the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king's country for their food supply.

I am going to break down your historical rubbish into smitterings:



The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history and has become a shameful embarassment to christians. 

The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E.  Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents.

However, Herod died before 12 April 4 B.C.E.  ( Fallacy number 1)

This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. ( Sharp thinking on the part of christians to correct their error)

However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius.  This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. ( Fallacy number 2)

There is no proof whatsoever to show that Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world at that time. Never! this is a historical lie of the highest proportion. It was simply Governor Quirinius of syria that ordered that cenus


Jesus was supposed to have been baptised by John soon after John had started baptising and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias i.e.  28 - 29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governer of Judaea i.e.  26 - 36 C.E. 

According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests.  But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus!  ( jesus couldnt have met john the baptist with these spurious dates)

Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas.

Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years.  Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas.  (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.)

Although the book of _Acts_ presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.).

Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book _Jewish Antiquities _which was used as reference by the author of _Luke_
and _Acts_.

May kelly, Please check your facts. Your giving Atheist too much ammunitions to tear you to shreds, Its simply not worth it with all these fantastic fables. This is just a summary of the above nonsense you tried to paint and to further compound your woes, i am going to actually sit down and para-phrase gospel by gospel accounts of the apostles Luke and matthew and explain the contradictory nonsense the world has been fed to believe.

Next time you want to prove me right, please don't use the bible as your reference point because it is definately going to be your waterloo.

Actually May kelly, you have done your self more harm than good and for calling me a confusionist, i am going to rip you to shreds in all totality concerning this issue.

I have seen all the passages you have so eloquently posted but you have to remember that for everything you write down, it is prone to scrutiny and nothing exists in isolation unless there is conclusive proof. If you really call this a defense to your hallucinations then, your not much of a debater or someone who uses that rational aspect of your brain to analyse things constructively.

Now lets get down to the real issues of the day:

There is no way you can talk about the existence of jesus without involving history as a guide. As long as you say jesus, mary and joseph lived as human beings with physical attributes which made them eat, sleep and shit, one way or the other, they must have been part of history. History guides the existence of a physical thing, structure or matter and the absence of historical facts makes it a pure mirage.

Once you can accept that jesus was born at so so time and lived during herods time and was cruxified under pilates era, then you cannot divorce the issue of issue following jesus where ever he went or what ever he did. And it is with historical facts that i am going to decimate this grand hoax called jesus.



[center][size=16pt]1[/size].[/center]


In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greekmythology.

The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we knowthat there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains.

The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact - the "historical Midas."

In the case of Jesus, their is however, no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.


[center][size=16pt]2[/size].[/center]


Normally when i am confronted with the existence of jesus i immediately point out that *the very existence of Jesus has not been proven*.

At this juncture when christian apologists begin to argue blindly, they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus.

The usual daft response is something like _"Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?"_.

Rationals and Reasonable Men point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named,while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus.

The existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth etc, is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shintoism,Taoism and Confucism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor,Zeus and Osiris.

Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars or symbols of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified.

To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide. It is this fact which puts Jesus on a
different level to established historical personalities. On the other hand, millions of honest people in Asia, who make up the majority of the world's population, have failed to be convinced by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling evidence for its authenticity.

Christian Apologists will insist that the story of Jesus is a well-established documented fact and will argue that there is "plenty of evidence supporting the existence of jesus"

My usual response is that a Rational Being should then insist on seeing this evidence and refuse to listen any further until they produce it.


[center][size=16pt]3[/size].[/center]

[center][size=16pt]( THE NAZARETH CONFLICT AND CHRISTIAN PRONOUNCIATION MISTAKE)[/size].[/center]


Now this is a passage from the scriptures that May kelly eloquently posted to back up her point about the birth of jesus: I am going to help you trace the the history of the word "nazareth" and how christians have so blightly got it totally wrong over the ages. So i hope your ready for a little history lesson because history never lies but man does.

( Dont worry May Kelly, your not the only one. Your christian forefathers were almost massive victims of this fraud)

Luke 1:26
[ The Birth of Jesus Foretold ] In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,

Now, If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place?

The Hebrew name for Christians has always been _Notzrim_. This name is derived from the Hebrew word _neitzer_ which means a shoot or sprout - an obvious Messianic symbol.

There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.) ( A jewish Rabbi of note). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu.

The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.)

Contrary to the rubbish you wrote that jesus is joshua in greek! did you watch the passion of christ? What was jesus's name there?, Hmmm let me see, ah Joshua the greek, lol

To move on, It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu.

The early Christians believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This belief is based on a misunderstanding of Micah _ 5.2 which simply names Bethlehem as the town where the Davidic lineage began.

Since the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple.

The early Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri" is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene."

The early Christians conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (_Nazarene_, Christian_), "Natzrati" _Nazarethite_) and "nazir" (_nazarite_), all of which have completely different meanings.


The Christians also claimed that the word "Notzri" means a person from Nazareth.

This is of course false since the original Hebrew for Nazareth is "Natzrat" and a person from Nazareth is a "Natzrati." The name "Notzri" lacks the letter tav from "Natzrat" as so it cannot be derived from it.

The Christians argue that perhaps the Aramaic name for Nazareth was "Natzarah" or "Natzirah" (like the modern Arabic name) which explains the missing tav in "Notzri." This is also nonsense since the Aramaic word for a person from Nazareth would then be "Natzaratiya" or "Natziratiya" (with a tav since the feminine ending "-ah" would become "-at-" when the suffix "-iya" is added), and besides, the Aramaic form would not be used in Hebrew.

The Christians also came up with various other arguments which can be ridiculously dismissed since they confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" and "nazir" or ignore the fact that "Notzri" is the earliest form of the word "Nazarene."

@may kelly

You really want me to embarrass you and expose this conjecture about the noah's ark?

Well since your a willing volunteer, i wont want you deprive you of the pains you willingly want to go through by defending such absurdities.

1. From your passages, i discovered you jumped the gun and went staright to gear 4 without even turning on the ignition key.

Your first line of defense to my post was:

Genesis 7:1  
[ The Flood ] Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be [Gen 6:9] righteous before Me in this time.

Excuse me! But huh, how did the ark get there? Did it just mysteriously drop from heaven or what? Or it just appeared from no where? Why do you christians love to redact and re-edit the bible whenever it suits your needs. Why are you avoiding to quote the relevant part of the noah's ark story which deals with the size and measurement of the ark which noah was told to build with his 3 sons and wives?

Like i said, you jumped the gun so am dismissing your nonsense and appalling defense with a wave of the hand. You christians think you can re script and re edit everything without others noticing the flaws, Rubbish!


To rephrase my earlier post in a very clear and concise way, i will bring out all the flaws in your argument and expose this story as the sham of the century which must be clearly rejected by all right thinking members of the society:



1. Why I don't (and, indeed, can't) accept the story of Noah's Ark as any sort of fact; and why I'm astonished that many educated adults consider it to be history and not mythology.

For me, it is one of the least believable parts of the entire Bible, and any theist who attempts to use it convert someone will have a hard job on their hands.

Let's look at it: Noah (at the ripe old age of 600!) and his sons built, using their bare hands, a seagoing vessel large enough to comfortably house a breeding pair of every land animal on the planet (although the bible isn't clear on this; in one place it says a pair of each creature, a few verses away it says seven of each clean, and two of each unclean creature (how did Noah know if tigers, kangaroos and penguins are clean or unclean?)), for at least forty days.

Diabolically imbecilic to say the least


Okay, so what are the problems with this :-


[size=16pt]The Ark itself[/size]

1. This boat would have had to have been bigger than a super-tanker!


2. There are MILLIONS of species on the land. There are over three hundred and fifty thousand species of beetle alone. The sheer number of insects would fill several arks, before you even consider the larger creatures. The ark would have to be the single largest ship ever in the history of the world. Modern technology could not possibly create a ship large and stable enough to act as Noah's Ark

(the only plausible explanation is that Noah would have needed a space-suit to walk on the deck!).  


Many species of land animal require highly specialised habitat and food to survive.

3. Koalas, for instance, eat one kilogram of fresh Eucalyptus- tree leaves per day, which provide all their water and nutrition (some people have suggested Noah had a year's supply of dried Euc. leaves. But Koalas need the leaves for their water.

What did Noah do? Rehydrate them? With what, a desalination plant? Hold them out in the rain every morning?)  

4. Also, no matter what time of year it was, many creatures would be hibernating (it's always winter somewhere on the globe). Many creatures are only found on one continent, indeed some are limited to a small island/forest/mountain. It's a neat trick to be able to walk thousands of miles to the Middle East if you're hibernating on a remote island near Alaska.  

5. How could the ark cope with all the specialised requirements of food/environment for millions of creatures? The 320 different species of humming-bird, for example, have very high metabolic rates and have to consume large amounts of nectar throughout the day. The Ark would have had to cater for 640 humming-birds, requiring an almost constant supply of fresh nectar. From flowers. Which wouldn't grow in great abundance in a dark, damp boat.

6. How could the ark cope with disposing of the waste products of those creatures?

In case you dont know what waste product is, it means Shit!

7.  It must have had an incredibly advanced plumbing and ventilation system, superior to anything to be found on modern ocean liners or large military vessels (eg. aircraft carriers). One problem that dairy farmers have is that vast quantities of fresh dung produce highly toxic gases (falling into the slurry pit can be fatal because of this), and it would have been many times worse on an Ark.

8. Next time you are at a zoo, ask one of the keepers how easy it is to deal with the needs of the few hundred animals they have for a month, and then imagine scaling that up to a gigantic floating zoo with millions of creatures being looked after by one old man and his family.  

9. Where did Noah find the pitch to waterproof the Ark with?

Flood theorists say that all the world's oil / petroleum deposits were formed during the Flood. How could Noah find and use pitch to waterproof the Ark before the Flood, when the pitch was formed during the Flood?

Did he have SCUBA gear as well, and kept diving down to gather fresh pitch from the ocean floor and apply it to the Ark while it was floating around?

Pitch is a petroleum deposit, which takes more than a couple of thousand years to form. (Some people argue that "wood-pitch" was used instead, although the commonly held belief is that it was petroleum-pitch).

Using modern equipment, it can take a good shipyard years to build a large ship, using hundreds of men. Noah (five hundred years old at the time) apparently had himself, a few helpers and a lot of gopher-wood trees.

Christians and the bible expect us to believe that he built the Ark, using crude hand-tools, over a period of many years in a world filled with evil, scheming criminals.

Remember one of the reasons god told noah to build the ark was because, ("The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."  

Here are a few of the things he would have had to deal with (some of these have been suggested by readers of this page):

10. Wood rotting. Left out in the open, the partly-built Ark would be exposed to the elements, such as rain, wind, lightning (a large structure is likely to get struck quite often, and wood burns), fungus, termites and ravenous beavers

(well, maybe not beavers).  

Maybe he first built a huge hangar in which he could construct it safely?

Maybe just the one exactly the size of Virgin Nigeria's Air hangar!  

hat would have almost be as great an enterprise as the Ark itself!

The last time i saw a ship this big was during star trek when obiwan and darth vadar , well that's another story for tomorrow, lol  

Unfortunately, the Bible does not enlighten us as to the whereabouts of Noah's Shed. I guess it was washed away in the Flood,  

Theft and vandalism. The hordes of fiendish deviants living around Noah at the time would no doubt have had enjoyed enormous sinful fun by sabotaging the Ark, stealing the wood for themselves (why cut and prepare your own wood when Noah's done the job for you?) and harassing the few workers.


[size=22pt]PART 2[/size]


[size=14pt]THE FLOOD[/size]

Then we come to the flood itself. The bible states that all mountains were covered, until they were about twenty feet below water. This also rules out the idea that it was somehow a local flood, confined to the Middle East (the most bizarre explanation I have heard along these lines is that Mars came close to the Earth, and it's gravitational pull raised up a dome of water in the region. The problems with this are too many to even think about.)

Some people might find it a little odd that God, omnipotent being who can create entire galaxies in an instant, takes weeks and weeks to flood the planet. Perhaps water is a bit fiddly to create?

How much water was there?

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Over the top of Mt. Everest then? The volume of water would have been astronomical. Millions of cubic miles. Where did it come from? Where did it go? The polar ice-caps are not big enough. The atmosphere does not contain millions of cubic miles of water.

Using a bit of armchair maths, we can roughly calculate how much water would have been needed to cover the planet to the top of Mt. Everest:

The radius of the Earth is approx. 6370km
The height of Everest above sea-level is approx. 8.8 km
Therefore, the volume of the Earth is approx. 1,082,696,932,000km³, or 1,080 billion cubic kilometers.
The volume of the earth to the height of Everest is 1,087,190,293,000km³
Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!
Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220 metres of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! A few centimetres in a day is considered to be extremely heavy rain.
( Note: volume of sphere = 4/3 pi r³, and I use the American billion of 1,000,000,000 here )  

Many Ark-theorists claim that scale models of the Ark have been built according to the Biblical specifications, and found to be extremely sea-worthy in test-tanks. I hope that these tests also attempted to simulate the correct amount of rainfall by aiming several high-pressure fire-hoses directly at the model.

Assuming it was fresh water (as it rained) this would have severely diluted the oceans, causing devastation among the marine creatures. Ask anyone with a marine fish-tank just how sensitive reef-fish and corals are to changes in water conditions. Virtually all sea-life that could not stand brackish water would have been destroyed.

How did so many plants survive being submerged in brackish water for so long? Again, many plants are quite sensitive to conditions. Take some of your household plants and leave them submerged in the bath or a pond for a year and see how they do.

Then, after the waters subside (where to?) there are still more problems with the story.


What happened to all the corpses of the countless numbers of animals and humans that died? Surely there would have been terrible plague and disease caused by all that rotting meat.

Ask the all knowing christians o!

Many sea-creatures would have been deposited in places they could not normally reach - inland lakes etc. Is there any evidence of marine fish skeletons being found in high, freshwater lake beds?

One imaginative way of explaining away the water is that the Earth was a lot flatter back then - the mountains were very low and the seas very shallow. After the Flood, God raised the mountains and sank the ocean floors, reducing the land area and creating space for the water to drain away to. As usual, there is no evidence to support this notion, and it also raises more questions.


For example, how did the deep-ocean sea creatures come about?

There are plenty of fish than can only survive at the great pressures on the ocean bottoms, the abyssal plains. These could not have existed before the Flood, as the oceans were apparently too shallow. Maybe they evolved after the Flood (in an incredibly short time)?

Maybe Satan created them (after all, they are all really ugly with lots of teeth)? Funny how creationists use evolution (and other branches of science) when it suits them, but denounce it as Satanic Lies the rest of the time,  

Many claims are made for sighting of the remains of the Ark in the mountains of Turkey. These Ark-pieces are supposed to be about nine thousand feet up the side of one precipitous mountain or another (usually Ararat). Now, these mountains are not gently rolling hills. They're huge great things covered with snow and full of jagged crevices. The mountain-goats, birds and flying squirrels could have probably got down safely (as long as they didn't freeze or starve on the way), but elephants, penguins, camels and crocodiles are not noted for their natural mountaineering ability.

Once again this defiles the laws of physics, biology, geography and science all at once

[size=22pt]PART 3[/size]


[size=14pt]The Animals[/size]


Next, I have to ask how all the creatures managed to get back to their original habitats, or at least ones that would support them.

How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?

As there were only two (or seven, depending) of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialised) food supply?

Of course, not all the animals were able to get away.

According to Genesis 8:20 Noah immediately sacrificed at least one of each pair of clean animal!

That could have potentially been a lot of animals.

Seems a bit pointless, really.

After all, God told him to build the Ark - it would appear to be rather unnecessary to thank God afterwards for looking after the Ark, and thanking God by slaughtering His creations and producing a huge pile of bloody corpses seems a little odd, So, that's the "clean" breeding pairs ruined (or reduced considerably if there were seven). Unless of course they were breeding/pregnant during the voyage. But then, how did the Ark cope with all the extra mouths to feed?  

Some creationists have come up with quite remarkably imaginative explanations as to how Noah managed to gather and store all the animals in a restricted space. A couple of the more interesting ones I've come across are:


These are some of the following dumb and stupid excuses profered by christians to justify their claims

He did not take adult animals, but eggs, babies and infants.

Presumably then, the creatures arrived at the Ark of their own accord, laid eggs or gave birth, and left poor old Noah to cope with the mess and figure out the best way to tend to the needs of the newborn tiger, chicken or tarantula.

Exactly who got the job of producing all the gallons of milk for the young mammals is not explained.

He did not even gather babies and eggs, but sperm and ova (egg eggs, if you will).

The difficulties that this situation raises are best left to the imagination, and should probably not be brought up as a topic of conversation at the dinner table, or in front of sensitive Aunts.

Many of the animals hibernated, or went into some sort of suspended animation.

As mentioned above, how the already-hibernating beasties get there in the first place? Was this a natural form of hibernation (which requires the build-up of large fat reserves first), or some sort of miraculous state? How did the animals build up enough fat whilst walking thousands of miles to the Ark (which would be quite good exercise)?

If it was all done with miracles, then why do creationists insist on explaining everything in naturalistic terms? Which is it? Magic or mundane?

[size=22pt]PART 4[/size]


[size=14pt]DISEASES[/size]

Some of the "animals" that are usually left out of the story are microorganisms (germs, bacteria, disease-bugs and so on).

Many bacteria, viruses and parasites spend their entire life-cycles within a specific host species.

This means that all the humans, plants and animals on the Ark would have had to be carriers for all the species-specific diseases that we have today (presumably, someone on the Ark carried HIV/AIDS, someone else had hepatitis, and another had several strains of influenza).

The Ark would have been a gigantic, disease-ridden plague-ship  .

Of course, maybe all modern diseases turbo-evolved after the Flood subsided (like the beetles : see below) - which makes you wonder how the surviving creatures managed to survive long enough to populate the world at all,

So, next time someone who doesn't accept evolution asks you where AIDS came from, pick up your Bible and turn to Genesis, Noah had it in his pocket!


[size=22pt]PART 5[/size]


[size=14pt]PEOPLE[/size]


Once Noah had seen all the animals off, he then had to set about repopulating the world. Again, incest in the bible rears it's ugly head.  

Noah's family had to inbreed to have children. Sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, first cousins and first cousins (as Noah's sons had their wives with them - eight people altogether) all nicely mixed together

Talk about the worlds biggest family incest ORGY, Hmmm, Noah and his kids must have been some very Hot freaks

(just as an aside, as all people before Noah were now dead, how does anyone know if the other events in the O.T. are true? We only have Noah's word for it, surely?).

The human race effectively began again with Noah & co.

Makes you wonder why the omniscient God even bothered with Adam & Eve. Why not start straight away with Noah?


It's also interesting to note that after the Flood, one of the first things the pure and virtuous Noah did was to make some wine, get drunk and roll around naked (Gen 9:21). Well, I suppose sailors always like to unwind a little after a long sea voyage,

Talk about christians who say being a shakis man is not a good thing, lol, Daddy noah started it all

In fact i could go on and on and on to demystify this Noachian Deluge. Please Christians just accept this gaffe and stop embarrassing yourselves with implausible excuses. This is what you get when you try and ram rod religion into the throats of unbelievers. You end up getting disgraced and more importantly in a very shameful way. All the excuses of it being read in a literal way lacks substance because according to christians, its the word of god and god doesnt speak literally.

After analysing this bullshit carefully can you still believe that it was an intelligent person that wrote this crap or some primitive goat herder somewhere in Afghanistan that has been able to bamboozle the whole of christianity for the last 5,000 years or so!

May kelly, your case has been dishonorably and disgracefully dismissed!

Next!

Tasma:

@ sun god
If you insist on arguing with fundamentalists and literal believers in the Bible you really will make little headway. Why? well because for a fundamentalist belief is more in important than critical analysis. For a fundamentalist the spiritual and emotional part of religion is sacred. When you point out holes in the rationality of his belief, you are threatening the core of his happiness and joy. He will then mostly react aggressively and maybe even respond to your questions obstusely.

I have given you an answer in that many Christians do not take Biblical stories literally, many are aware of the historical, cultural and mythological influence on biblical writings. Many of such Christians will not argue about the issues you have brought up because they already have similar views. However a Christian may still choose to live a Christian lifestyle for the emotional advantages - the happiness factor.

@Tasma

I will definately accord you that respect and honour because you have at least tried to debate this issue from a rational point of view which i am interested in but there are still some flaws in the argument but just because you summarized it by pointing out the dangers of christian fundamentalists in the our mordern day society trying to distort the bible at every whimps and caprice they possess, i would buy your argument.

Rationals believe that if even christians rely on the bible, they should pick out the moral issues of making mankind a better person instead of gloating over silly things like heaven or hell or god is perfect and ominiscent and all that crap. If they focused more on values without ascribing so many false doctrines to buttress their points, Rationals wouldnt have any problem with it and just leave them alone.

But would an average christian hear that? No of course! They would disturb you with their endless preachings, televangelism, words of future doom if you dont worship the almighty and words of fear and terror to support their claims. They all tend to forget that the more they do such nonsense, the more rationals would go out and investigate their claims and when they know its game up for them, they begin to conjure up innuendoes and allegories to validate their claims and if that trick doesnt work for them, they resort to insults and more threats. So we are not bothered. All we have to do is to expose the sham and fraud being circulated by christians and make them wallow in their own shame and embarrassment.

Anyway good to hear from you and hope we can engage in a more constructive debate sometime, Cheerio!

Jesus' birth stories are very dubious and are Mostly derived from pagan myths and it very likely that all such beliefs were written retrospectively by the Roman gospel writers, or were assumed from the outset. There is no evidence or reason to believe that they actually occurred and i have 5 reasons to prove that the nativity story are all guess work and hearsay and hearsay means it cannot be substantiated what so ever and what ever is unsubstantiated is totally inadmissible and irrelevant:


1.  The Roman Census, Bethlehem and Nazareth

“When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus' death, nobody knew where he was born. But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

In the light of this prophecy, John's gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: 'Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ shall cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?'

Controversy number 1 amongst jesus disciples himself

Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all. But they get him there by different routes.

hmm are the disciples seeing double or what?

Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth only long after the birth of Jesus

Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to fulfil the prophecy?

Whoever edited this piece of fiction ought to have been fired ever since for been a poor fictional proof reader

Luke says that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governer of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go 'to his own city'. [, ]

Except that it is historical nonsense  David, if he existed, lived nearly a thousand years before Mary and Joseph.

Why on earth would the Romans have required Joseph to go to the city where a remote ancestor had lived a millenium earlier?

Am just as confused as the christians now, sigh!

Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking.

There was indeed a census under Governor Quirinius - a local census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a whole - but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod's death.”

So where did the fake census come from then as enuciated in the bible?


2. The roman census, Bethlehem

Within his nativity story Luke also tells us that Caesar, the famous Roman Emperor, called for a census and Joseph and Mary had to return to their town of origin, Bethlehem, until the census was complete.

By now we know this is not true but a pure fabrication. History doesnt lie

The Roman Empire is well documented, including documentation of the Romans taxation laws and system which was based on property and wealth. At no point did the Romans require people to return to their place of birth for a census. Luke was clearly wrong about the census, the reasons for Joseph and Mary being in Bethlehem, and wrong on his opinion that Jesus' birth was of a virgin.

Tut tut tut! What a shame and i was beginning to take Luke for his word, lol

Matthew, the only other gospel to include information on this, does not include any of these aspects of Jesus' birth, and merely states that he was born in Bethlehem, whilst Herod was king. All of Luke's insertions about singing angels, barns, mangers and virgin birth are not mentioned in Matthew's version.

Why are the disciples contradicting themselves now? They ate, slept, danced and played ten ten with each other so why the confusion, hmm i think either one of them is lying or all of them are liars

Despite the long-winded and desperate attempts to get Jesus from Nazareth into Bethlehem, it may be that they did not read Micah 5:2 correctly.

"Since the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri" is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene." The early Christians conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (_Nazarene_, _Christian_), "Natzrati" _Nazarethite_) and "nazir" (_nazarite_), all of which have completely different meanings." 

Bottom line there is no historical evidence to prove there was a town, village or city ever in the history of mankind called Nazareth. What were the disciples thinking? That nobody would verify their claims? If jesus was born in nazareth and there is no history of any nazareth till date, what does that tell you about jesus. Simple, He never existed to say the least. He has no birth place of note and the bible so brazenly says it time and time again "Jesus christ of Nazareth". A leader without no home or birthplace? Gimme a break!


3. When was Jesus Born?

Further problems exist in the contrasting Luke/Matthew accounts of Jesus' birth.

More problems from Luke and Matthew?, heeehehee! This is too good to be true!

Luke claims that Jesus was born when Quirinius, a roman official, was the governor of Syria. This happened during or shortly after 6ad.

Confusion number 2 again

Matthew however, claims that Jesus was born whilst Herod the Great reigned over Judea, and Herod died in 5 or 4 BC.

Please can somebody tell these two knuckle heads to get their stories right for once. Haba! Am sure jesus must have told them the real thing now!

There is a huge 10/11 year gap between these two dates, and either Luke or Matthew were wrong. Given Luke's track record, and that fact that historians accept the date of 4ad for Jesus' birth, it is likely that Luke was (once again) wrong.

How come? 10/11 years gap is a very wide margin to fabricate imaginary stories, but lets move on, it gets more interesting

4. Christians for a few hundred years did not celebrate Christmas. Early Christian fathers note that only pagan sun-worshippers celebrate on the 25th of December (by our calendar).

Sun worshipping religions have worshipped on Sundays, and on the Winter Solstice, for many hundreds of years before Christianity took up the practice. Jesus was not born in December, or in January.

Luke 2:8 states that shephards were out watching their flocks by night. No flocks would have been out, during winter! The average winter temperature in Israel is 5 or 6 degrees celsius. Farmers in Israel did not allow their flocks out during such cold nights.

Common this is just plain logic now. Who watches his sheep or flock at night during the winter period? 


5. King Herod: The Killing of Every Male Baby

The next part of Matthew, two, tells us of King Herod's anger at the three wise men and then of the killing of every child. Surely, the slaughter of every male child (Matthew 2:16-17 in Bethlehem, Ramah, and the surrounding area would have got mentioned in many places, such as Josephus' detailed accounts of the times, in fact it would likely cause the downfall of such an immoral, monstrous leader who issued such orders! Incidentally, the other 'great' leader in the Bible to issue such orders was Moses, Numbers 31:17-18, Joshua 6:21-24, in both cases killing all the women/young/old in a city in two separate occasions

But there is no historical evidence to verify such outrageously imaginary claims till date

Many other myths, including more ancient Roman ones, had an event where all the male children were killed, and the famous Romulus and Remus story is (once again) a good, famous example.

It is likely that Herod's orders to kill all those children, and the star that went noticed by all except three astrologers from "the East", did not actually happen. Both Luke and Matthew appear to, well, make things up, and none of these things are mentioned in the other two gospels, nor in the recovered Gospel of Thomas.

And lets not go into the gospel of thomas and newly discovered gospel according to Judas yet since i presume most of the christians world wide don't know it exists! 


Brief Conclusion

There are no birth records for Jesus, nor any first hand accounts of his life, so that these two contradictory and inaccurate accounts are the only snippets of information that we have.

It is possible that Matthew/Luke were referring to a myth when they talked of Jesus' and his early life. It seems highly likely that Luke, when writing of the events that surrounded Jesus' birth, was thinking of the famous Roman myth (that was around well before the Jesus' myth) of Romulus and Remus - who also were born by a virgin, and also had a king ordering the slaughter of all the other children in the same area.

Honestly how would christians try and untangle themselves from these embarassing knots! Surely no scholar or intelligent man would sanction such absurdities. It all goes to show that the bible is written by primitive people who had no idea that their fallacies would be cross checked in future. They just assumed since christians must believe it hook line and sinker, the logical and arational ones would never have the opportunity to investigate their myths. Sorry but we now know this is a farcade and it puts a hugh dent in christaina beliefs and the veracity of such a religion.

Dont mind them jayfk jare. They have being tongue tied and have all gone hiding into their shells. If the question was one that had to do with their silly night virgils or sunday sunday school headed by one fanciful pastor, they would all be running their mouths to defend the bible with so much venom. Now that kata kata don comot, them all de hide for one corner.

To even rub pepper for their eyes, i would even alledge another mythical biblical fact that totally nullifies the birth of jesus and then we know wahala don come

babamutu:

@ poster. If it were those days, u would be stone to death for blasphemy!!!

Typical religious fanatic and fundamentalist that has nothing to say but encourages violence just the way the koran or bible preaches.

Am not suprised because its one of the hall marks of a religious bigot to say something mundane and not address the issues, questions and posers that have being thrown to you to verify your claims about your religion. But the moment somone askes a question about the fabricated lies that has been expounded in your widely primitive, unbelievable and imaginable holy books, you begin to think of violence as a last resort!

Pssssssfffffff! Rubbish!

P:S: Rationals dont believe in violence and blasphemy. We believe in logical thinkings and if the evidence is conclusive we give you a resounding pat on the back for a job well done but if its false, you would recieve the greatest tongue lashing of the century.

So pick your poision and tread very wisely!

@still water

**yawns very hard and feels very drowsy from the dry and boring comments from a badly bruised and embarrased christian!**

sigh!

@frizy

After reading your post, i have to say i was wrong. Wrong in the sense that i have greatly offended myself for conversing with a teenager and i would be suprised if your up to 15 years sef, sigh

Your silly questions about how man came about is definately not what this topic is all about and the fact that you have been badly battered and bruised in respect of a religion you cant defend, doesnt mean you should avoid the topic and use style style to change mouth!

Anyway to summarize your topic about the evolution of man in one sentence, i would rather ask you back this question. "Who made god?" Because rations dont equate any form of reasonableness to the beginning of mankind and it will forever be a mystery till it has been solved logically and evidentially. Thats why you dont see free thinkers postulating about what made man and what didnt make mankind.

But the problem arises when you say god made man and your trying to shove it down the throats of rations to believe such cock and bull story, then we bare our fangs and begin to ask questions to validate the authencity of the claims. The moment it cant be substantiated, then its a fraud and the more you believe in that fraud, the more we see you as been extremely delusional.

You dont see me here attacking buddists or aztec sun god worshippers because they have kept their beliefs to themselves and not over take the world with it. In return, we respect their views and keep quiet. But the loud mouthed ones like islam and christianity would definately see the louder aspect of criticisms from us.

In a nut shell, there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of god. You might be wondering why i havent tilted towards evolution yet. Its because there are still rough edges that needs to be sorted out before we accept it wholesomely, but compared to islam and christianity, they still have an iota of evidence of the existence of mankind compared to a cock and bull story that Adam just came out from the blues, pssssf!

You may believe that there is no god, no be today- many people have said that, but they are reaping the strive of their labor. Hell will rest their case, they will burn over and over and their flesh will be renewed.

Now that you're an atheist, you mock us now, God Himself mocks the disbelievers for their unbelief. There is nothing you can hide from Him, all their thought will be searched out and the enemies of All'ah will be thrown to the Blazing Fire!

Hell, haaaaaaaaaaaaa!

let me tell you what atheists or Rationals think of hell! I have an article written by a fellow rational that describes hell and i would share it with you, lol




[size=14pt]Why would Satan want us to repent[/size]?


Would Satan really want to torture you for doing his evil work? Surely he would give you a pat on the back and a pint of cold beer, not tie you to a rock and attack you with a cheesegrater. What's he going to say? "Aha! Right, you gave in to temptation and lived a life of Sin, just like I wanted you to. As punishment for disobeying God, and doing my work instead, I'm, erm, going to torture you, er, Hang on a minute, Have I got that right?"

We are always told "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be punished in Hell.". Well, unless Hell is full of Angels doing the torturing, it seems like the saying should be "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be rewarded in Hell.". You can understand why priests never tell you this when they are ranting on about Hellfire And Damnation.

Could it be that Lucifer is working under the direct orders of God? - "Now then, Luci old pal. I want you to get some big red horns and go tempt some mortals. If you succeed, you can inflict pain on them until they repent, when they can come here with me. Oh, and be careful not to let them know I put you up to it."

It should also be remembered that the Creator is supposedly omniscient. When he created the Angel Lucifer, he knew exactly what was going to happen (how could he not, if he is omniscient?). God created Evil, and created Satan as an instrument of Evil, and us mere mortals are the ones who are on the receiving end and get all the eternal torment. Might it not have been easier to simply not create Evil in the first place?

[size=14pt]Brimstone And Sulphur[/size]


There is a special toasty corner of Hell reserved for scumbag atheists like me, or so I'm told. If that's where I'm headed then I think it's only fair to cast a critical eye over the concept.

There are various definitions of Hell according to which religion you follow, and to which sub-branch of that religion you subscribe. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, don't think that Hell is a place of flames and torment, but simply a place outside the sphere of God's love. When you pop your clogs, good JW's get into Heaven (which may actually be on Earth anyway), and everyone else just, doesn't. It's a bit strange and vague, but that's the JWs for you.

Most people are familiar with the common concept of Heaven and Hell. Nice people go to Heaven where they get a harp and sit on a cloud for the rest of eternity; bad people go to Hell where demons poke them with sharp sticks for the rest of eternity. Heaven is ruled by God and Jesus, Hell is ruled by Satan and his minions. Oooh, you'd better be good or you'll burn in Hellfire forever!! And you don't want that, do you?

This is all well and good, if that's where you stop thinking about it. Unfortunately, some of us have inquisitive minds and can't help but probe a little deeper into this odd aspect of Christianity.

[size=14pt]Where is Hell[/size]?




Yes, yes, we all know there are several towns called Hell or Hel, but I'm talking about the hot place ruled by the big red guy with horns.

Is it an actual physical location?

Some seem to think so. Some people believe that Hell is located at the centre of the Earth (there was even a story some years ago about Russian miners going so deep that they heard the screams of the Damned). You can understand how this belief came about - thousands of years ago, people seeing erupting volcanoes probably thought that Hell was leaking. It gave them a startling insight into the world below. This could well be how the whole Burning In Hellfire idea came about.

If there really was a huge hollow cavern in the molten mantle, I can't help but wonder why it hasn't yet shown up on geological/seismological surveys,

Others seem to think that it is on some other dimensional plane of existence - it really does exist, but not in the universe as we know it.

[size=14pt]What happens to your body[/size]?

Back to the idea of demons poking you with sharp sticks. Hell is portrayed as a place of eternal torment - every possible torture and atrocity that you can imagine will be inflicted on you, forever. You will be in constant agonising pain for all eternity (so you'd better repent, or else).

How does this happen then? When you die, your central nervous system stops functioning and your body is buried or burnt. There is a well understood process for the transmission of pain signals from your nerves to your brain. No nerve cells, no pain.

In order to be poked by demons and feel that as pain, you require a physical body with all the appropriate nerve connections. How does this come about then? Is your body mysteriously transported from your grave / cremation urn to Hell and brought back to life again? Is your "spirit body" altered to let you feel pain in the same way as your long-dead physical body used to? [/color]

What if you're a masochist and really quite like it? After all, if you don't have a real body, you could even start suggesting new and interesting tortures for the demons to try. "Hey, this pitchfork stuff is getting a bit dull, don't you have any red-hot pokers covered with ants instead? Ooh, ahh, up a bit, YES! YES!!!" [color=#990000]

It could also be argued that the threat of eternal torment loses effectiveness after a while - if a person who actually believes in Hell commits a number of serious crimes, what is to stop him from thinking "Well, I'm going to burn for eternity for killing those ten people, What's going to happen to me if I kill another ten and rob a few more banks? It can't get any worse - where's my gun?" If he commits twice the sins, he can't exactly suffer for two eternities, can he? Or would he experience double-infinite pain?

[size=14pt]How do you get there[/size]?

What you actually have to do in order to go to Hell varies wildly depending on your interpretation of scripture. For instance, some people say it doesn't matter what crime you commit - as long as you truly repent before you die you'll go to Heaven. On the other hand, some catholic nuns give the impression that you'll suffer eternal torment just for looking at them funny or making jokes about the Pope's silly hat.

All this can lead to some bizarre inconsistencies. A good example is the recent case of Karla Faye Tucker (and I mean no disrespect to the families involved when I use this as an example). This case made headline news in early 1998 - Karla Tucker had been involved in the pick-axe murder of two people and sentenced to death. During her time in prison she became a born-again Christian, turning her life over to Jesus Christ and repenting for her crime. This stirred up a hornet's nest as people like Pat Robertson suggested that she should not be executed, as she was a changed person (of course, many other people find Jesus/Allah on Death Row, but Tucker was A: a woman, and B: a christian, so she seemed to get preference in the eyes of Robertson and the like).

My point is this. Depending on your particular interpretation of the Rules Of The Afterlife, Tucker either


Went to Hell for being a drugged-up pick-axe murderer.
Went to Heaven because she repented and found salvation through Jesus.
Also


Her victims went straight to Heaven because they were innocent murder-victims,
Or, if they had not already accepted Jesus as their saviour, they went straight to Hell.
This leads to the insane possibility that the murderer went to heaven, and her victims went to Hell. Or even that they all went to either Heaven or Hell.

How many murder victims in Heaven get an unpleasent surprise when their "saved" murderer finally comes up to join them?

Who runs the place?
Easy answer: Satan (big red guy, horns, pointy tail etc.).
Tricky answer: God (old guy with beard and white robe).

"Don't be daft, of course Satan runs the place!", I hear you cry.

Really? How did he get the job, then? After The Fall, did Satan set up shop in the underworld and send an advertisement to God, touting for business -


Now Open - Underworld Torture Facility.
Let us handle the tedious work of torturing
the Damned for you.
Full Repentance Or Your Money Back!
10% discount on first million souls if you call today

So what happens when you die? Do you really go up to the Pearly Gates where Peter is waiting with his Big Book Of Your Life? Too many black marks and he sends you down to Hell,

Or is there some sort of spiritual Tug-O-War, as angels and demons fight it out over your soul?

It seems to me that God and Lucifer have some sort of deal going on here. If we succumb to temptation during our lifetime, we go to Hell where we get tortured until we repent, when we are magically transported back up to Heaven. How does that work? Does Lucifer suddenly realise that after 55,000 years of torture you've suddenly become a good person, and he is contractually obliged to send you "upstairs"? Or does God look down into Hell, notice the change and whisk you away to get your wings? "Oh Darn!", says Lucifer, "There goes another one. Why does that keep happening?"

Many people believe that once you are in Hell, you are there for good (or bad). That's it. No parole. Just eternal, searing, excruciating, agonising torture for trillions of years, without so much as a toilet break. Murderers, rapists and drug-dealers, as well as perfectly normal people who simply failed to believe, will have their skin burnt off for all eternity. All sins merit the same punishment, it would appear. If this is so then it seems to me that any God who would send people to such a place can only be described as a mindless monster. Alternatively, if God unconditionally loves everyone and has the ability to pull them out of Hell, but does not, then he is still an insane tyrant.

Ah, but (so I am told) God does not send anyone to Hell. They choose to go there by refusing to accept God. Does this make any sense to you? Just imagine : you die, and go up to the Pearly Gates. Well, gosh, it looks like I was wrong all this time! Okay, so there is a God. I pretty much have to believe now, don't I? Can I come in? What, I can't? I have to take the down-elevator? That doesn't seem right,

This idea about people choosing Hell just seems like some sort of sick joke, I'm afraid. How can it be said that a person who lives a blameless life, but (for whatever reason) does not accept J.Christ as their personal saviour, is making an active, conscious decision to suffer horrible pain for an infinite amount of time?

Hmmm, maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses version isn't so far-out after all.
You see the sort of trouble you can get into just by applying a little bit of reasoning and thought to religion?

Bottom line frizy, I am an atheist. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, demons or angels. There is no devil trying to tempt you to eat one more doughnut, drive a little faster, murder your neighbour, burn down a church or cheat on your partner. If you do something bad, it is your own fault and no-one else's.

Should we teach our children that they are under constant attack from evil, invisible demons, trying to get them to be naughty, and that if they do then they will horribly tortured forever? Or should we try to teach them respect for others and a sense of responsibility and accountability?


Accept responsibilty for your own actions.
Don't seek forgiveness from your deity - seek it from those you hurt.
The Devil didn't make you do it. You did.

Oby1:

normal, after exercising his mouth he will exit like others. Glory be to Jesus and honour to Mary shakes the kingdom of darkness and seems is working here.

Na wao i still dey office, no mass for me today

Sheep talk + A Delusional Mind = A brainwashed delusional catholic sheep



+



= Brain dead catholics

Keep dreaming about your feeble words that shakes the darkest corners. I used to think holy water was the in thing? Guess you have learnt how deluded you were when father okoro didnt cast out any demon with his holy water.

Also what about the kissing of the cruxifix on good friday? Sure your mouths would have been filled with all those disease infested mouths from vulcanizers, area boys, bike men and the whole lot of deluded catholics that ended up kissing on lifeless cross. How zombie like can a sect be? I can just imagine you lot kissing the same cross that one pus infested prostitute had just kissed 3 minutes ago before you added your own lips and 100s of other lips.

Later Lagos state govt would be wondering why there are so many mouth infections all of a sudden! , pheww

Some ritual i must say!

Besides i have some pictures to remind you in case you have forgotten the holy art thou attitude of catholics isnt justifiable because catholics did the following in the last 1,200 years. So all your 3 billion glory to god, honour to mary hog-wash mantra cannot wash the darkness of the following heinous crimes catholics have commited.



Please pick your poision and enjoy your atrocities by the great vatican, heeeeeehee











I really like this one. Shows how gruelsome catholics can be. I hope he was saying glory to god, honor to mary when he was plucking out her eyes, lol




Burn you non catholic for not believing mary was a virgin, lol




Glory glory glory to jesus, Honor honor honor to mary for a wonderful job done to apease our almight catholic god!, lol

uchkochi:

I am not here to criticise,neither am i here to sympathise.I am here to share a little truth,the lack of truth has trapped many people.Every body is believing what he likes.If you don't believe the Word Of God which is the only approved manual for life then your foundation is shaking.
I do not have the right to decide who goes to heaven but lets be frank here the bible says it all God is not in most celebrated churches.And its only the insiders that can tell you the truth.The catholic faith believe in Jesus but they deny the power of Jesus indirectly with their idol worship.Yes!!!!!!!! what is the meaning of the statues and rosaries is that the power,No,its a vain tradition.I DONT CARE HOW OLD IT HAS BEEN IT IS AN OLD MISLEADING,TRADITIONAL RELIGION.
I have attended catholic churches but i did not see any life there,its so boring you don't have to be a prophet to know that majority of what they do is contrary to scriptures.they are following the pope and not Christ.Who is the pope now following?
The doctrine of their priest not getting married so they can serve God better is a deceit.They are propagating Gay ism(homosexuality).
My fellow catholics know God for yourself don't go to a political,traditional church.
Further more how many Catholics believe in speaking in tongues,have they not read 1st corinthians 12 about the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Christianity is not a religion,true christianity is a relationship with God our father.You might be the most committed catholic member and end up in hell because of a truth you were never born again.Once you are born again you have to desire the gift of speaking in tongues which is the spiritual heavenly language so it can help u pray the will of God it is a free gift from God you just have to desire it.God cannot lie Evil persist when good men keep quiet please share your view,thanks
UCHE OKOCHI(omega world network)
+2348052773865

Haaaaaaaaa! Case of the kettle calling the pot black, lol

While your quick to destroy the catholic church (Which in my own opinion would be a lovely movie to watch), you are even in a worse and precarious situation by declaring christianity to be the utimate as per a relationship between you and the father.

May i ask again, what father? An imaginary thing that you so desperately cling unto that you call a father?

How do you keep a relationship with something that is non existent? Maybe you meant zeus god or horus or venus or any of those pagan gods because left to me, they are all farcades that shouldnt be touched with a 6 inch pole. So whose more delusional? You or the catholics?  

You also talk about how many Catholics believe in speaking in tongues,have they not read 1st corinthians 12 about the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

You mean that constant irritating psycho babble that you dont even understand? How come it is easy for you to speak greek, aramic, greek, hebrew and gaulish in the spate of 30 minutes all at once in a church and you havent been to either of these countries to remotely study their language?  but common seme border french, urhobo or nupe language is extremely difficult for you to comprehend! You christians never cease to amaze me with your falsehood and hypocrisy

Also taking about being born again is just the greatest scam the bible has pulled on man ever. I got news for you , You are born only once with one body, no soul , no spirit and one brain. Its your conscience that guides you not some gift of spirit. You take total responsibility for all your actions and the consequences of your inactions. Its not some dumb spiritual gift you have to acquire to be a changed man and to make matters worse, the power to speak aramic.?, Jeez what a nut job you are!

Finally for once your right, Evil reigns when good men dont talk. Its about time rational men world wide come out and debunk such irrational stories filtering the airwaves, internet and papers about a non existent god. Check the statistics of evil men in the world. Either they are christians or muslims. Check the numebr of religious fundamentalists in prision totally. 98% christians or muslims. Check the number of political thieves! Arent the religious fanatics the ones at the helms of affairs?

Rubbish, I dont even know which is worse born againism or hypocrisy!

To you and your omega 13 network cult, be warned that the rationals are now ready to take on you guys head on. For everytime you preach something, you should be ready to defend it with your last blood. Falsitude and hypocrisy would no longer be acceptable. If you decide to teach the word of god, be ready to answer questions from the children of the rational response squad

hmmm, a pilgrim wannabe huh! I went through your thread and found out that that pilgrim fella totally destroyed you catholics that you all had to shut up and finally give up by ignoring her, lol

So much for the great mighty powerful catholic faithfuls that couldnt even handle 1 chap

Dont worry i wont add to your woes like pilgrim. He probably said it all and reduced you catholics to mere virgin mortals. It would be an over kill by lending my own small by mighty virgin hand to your delusions.

All i know is that when people like that carlos guy begin to question me unduely, be prepared for my rational answers and when i question the veracity of the catholic church, please dont go into hiding like scared little puppies that i know you are and be bold enough to defend your faith.

Isnt it why you guys have a ritualistic confirmation ceremony to become defenders of the faith?

Some shmuck defenders you all have turned out to be with your regular boring mantra " Glory to jesus, honor to mary" that is the only thing you know how to say.

I wish you could hear your selves in a room just repeating those words like the sheeps in Animal farm

"4 legs good, 2 legs bad" , And guess what the whole world thought of the sheeps!

Dense, daft, dumb and unintelligent bunch of mammals! And from the foregoing, catholics are not too far of from the sheep!

" Glory to jesus, honor to mary" " Glory to jesus, honor to mary" " Glory to jesus, honor to mary" " Glory to jesus, honor to mary" " Glory to jesus, honor to mary" " Glory to jesus, honor to mary", haaaaaaaaa!

Even the sheeps were more ingenious than this!

virgin of Nazareth is hailed by the heralding angel, by divine command, as ‘full of grace’ (cf. Luke 1:28).

huh, sorry to bust your bubble but history has shown that there is no such thing as a town or village called nazareth.

There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list of the cities of Galilee).

Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles got written before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first one didn't come into existence until about 40 years after the hypothetical death of Jesus.

Catholic Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming that Nazareth existed as an insignificant and easily missed village (how would they know?), thus no one recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Nazareth, they always refer to it as a city, never a village, and a historian of that period would surely have noticed a city.

(Note the New Testament uses the terms village, town, and city.) Nor can apologists fall on archeological evidence of preexisting artifacts for the simple reason that many cities get built on ancient sites. If a city named Nazareth existed during the 1st century, then we need at least one contemporary piece of evidence for the name, otherwise we cannot refer to it as historical.

Another beautiful fabrication of the vatican!, I Love this church, lol