₦airaland Forum

Darevofpeace:
The same question apply to you,what about if I am right and you are wrong, above all else,the first attribute you have in your life when you have Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour is "Divine Peace" you can't explain it but you are too sure that the future is gonna be alright and you do not loose your sleep over any challenges.

Answer my question. Then I'll answer yours

budaatum:
And the so called Christians will be arguing with you that what they see with their Jesusglasses, you too should see it with your blind eyes. And when you can't see it, they will claim you are the fool!

Arranger, stop blaming your unseeability on the thing you don't see when it is your eyes that you should get Jesusglasses for so you can see! If you are interested.

As to you Christians, you are the fools! Fools for telling blind people to see what only the unblind Jesusglasses wearing people alone can see! Jesus filled people would direct them to the optician!

I'd rather be blind then....

Ihedinobi3:
You asked.

The Bible is too flawed to consider as evidence. Try again.

Ihedinobi3:
You just said what it is. What was I answering before? The Bible testifies that Jesus Christ a Man from Nazareth in Israel was really God Who came in a human body to die for human sins so that we won't need to face God's Condemnation when we die.

What other evidence do you want? You want Him diced and sliced up in a lab before you believe it?

The Bible? LoL. Let's not even go there, mate.

Ihedinobi3:
Exactly, thank you.

Mind if i ask for this evidence? I'm interested in it

Ihedinobi3:
Well, there you are. We see no objective evidence to suggest that Anubis is real either.

But you have evidence that Jesus is real as described by the Bible. Sure thing, bruv

Ihedinobi3:
Why don't you think both are possible?

Cause I've seen no objective evidence to suggest either are real?

Ihedinobi3:
Well then, Christians don't think Anubis is possible either. That is why there is no question whether we will see Anubis when we die. We know we won't.

Why don't you think Anubis is possible?

Ihedinobi3:
I'm not sure what else there is to say here. If we die and find ourselves face to face with Anubis, then we were completely wrong.

But that is not the point, is it? The real question is this: is it equally possible to see Anubis as it is to see Jesus?

That is my question to you, TheArranger. What do you think? Are they equally possible? If you think they are, why do you? If one is more, why do you think it is?

I don't think either is possible. Now what?

shadeyinka:
Lack of scientific explanation is never an evidence for the existence or lack of existence of God. No!
However, it is a scientific means of saying that the probability of it existing or not is neither 0% nor 100%

Now, it means you are the one playing a Russian Roulette with your soul.
For me, I don't need any scientific validation to believe in God...and I have nothing to loose even if I am wrong. (I am not about discussing Pascal's Wager)

Your last paragraph looks like Pascal's wager to me.

shadeyinka:
I don't need you to validate my points: not at all. I don't need to validate God's existence. It is you who need to validate God's non-existence. Morality and Righteousness is relative. The point is , relative to what standard is Righteousness?

Athiesm is a kind of faith! Where the Creator God is replaced with Self or self worship. Before you start screaming, do you have evidence that God doesn't exist? If you do, bring it out! ;Then athiesm would not be a religion if you can prove it.

Yes you do have a doctrine! Disbelieve in the existence of God/God's. Like ATR, you don't have a scripture!


Edited:
Why I am not a Muslim?
I almost said the Shahada in my 200L. I was genuinely seeking for God...... So, I know the Bible and I know enough Islam to make an intelligent choice at the end of the day. The details is not relevant to you!

Can you disprove that I'm God?

No, you can't ask me to demonstrate anything. I'm not a vending machine. I act according to my will and my will alone and you can not possibly comprehend why everything I do is what results in the best of all possible worlds. But everything in the universe acts according to my will and my will alone, unless you can prove otherwise.

So, can you prove that I'm not God? No? Then are you ready to accept me as your personal Lord and Savior? If not, why not?

The reason you give me is the reason I don't believe in your god.

When it comes to religion, I think its safe to say that I've been on all sides of the spectrum. Started as a christian, gravitated towards agnosticism in secondary school, became an atheist after I left the university......
I think my point is, as someone who's argued from all these viewpoints, there's something I've realized - Its a pointless argument. Am not saying I didn't know this since. I actually did. But debate is a fun exercise, however when it comes to christians or religious/"god" apologists in general, there's just no point.
Firstly, religion and strong atheism require fundamental assumptions, that require you to change it yourself, and aren't going to be swayed by a rational argument. Christians for example (based on experience), have faith as their foundation. For strong (not weak) atheists, this foundation is empiricism, naturalism etc etc. basically the belief that only those things that can be observed with science exist.
Second, the two parties of this argument are arguing for the sole reason of proving themselves right, not always seeking the truth. Some of you know deep down this is true. I'm not saying there aren't people who've gained faith in God, or lost it. But in Nairaland, I've never witnessed such happen mid forum. People on this forum as I've noticed debate to change other people's minds, without carefully re-examining theirs (I don't know if that makes sense lol ).
The problem is, changing your opponent's mind when it comes to religion is nigh impossible because of the foundation. I've seen a lot of people here on Nairaland (mostly christians sorry to say) resort to insults rather than stay on topic. This is because these people see arguments opposing their worldview as a personal attack rather than what it really is - a debate! This is all because of the foundation.
Personally, I've just come to accept that religious debates are nothing more than philosophical exercises. However, if one is thinking he can change someone's worldview or belief mid forum, I'd like you to show me how. Maybe my understanding of debates is flawed
Cc. Seun, OAM4J, LordReed, Martinez19, HellVictorinho, Michellekabod1, Vic2Ree, budaatum, MuttleyLaff, XxSabrinaxX, RuthlessLeader, Janettee, MhizAngel99, frank317, CAPSLOCKED, Dantedasz, finalboss, HardMirror, Mobilia, luvmijeje, PastorAIO, Verapax2001, Myth121, Ranchhoddas, HardMirror, MJBOLT, adoyi8, HopefulLandlord, Ihedinobi3, BronzeMajik, Niflheim, johnydon22, felixomor, JujuSugar, festwiz, Hermes019, HenryDion, HappyPagan, NPComplete, LuciferVirgin, CreepyBlackpool, frosbel2, hahn, TATIME, jesusjnr, Originakalokalo, OpenYourEyes1, Anas09, GeneralShepherd

felixomor:
Argumentum ad hominem
"the ridiculous attempt of trying to win a logical argument by attacking the other party without making any meaningful point"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTAytm-_6s
I'll be back to respond properly. For now, watch this video to see why I called him a joke.

[quote author=tbibuzz post=75216153][/quote]I have lack of info but you've said nothing to refute either me nor the OP.
Kindly go back to the hole you crawled out of if you have nothing to say to me.

felixomor:
There are so many.
Just go to youtube and enjoy this movie.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM

Thank me later

Ray Comfort is a joke. I really cannot decide whether he is simply too stupid to understand basic evolutionary biology or what a logical fallacy is. However I have seen Comfort educated over and over but even when he acknowledges corrections on his misconceptions, he immediately returns to the same ridiculous arguments. But yeah, just the typically dishonest and underhanded creationist nonsense as usual...

Myth121:
Honestly think about it. If you know someone’s gonna rob a bank, you still wait for them to do it to punish them. Their warrant is severely lacking logical cohesion.

No? If I know someone is gonna rob a bank, I inform the police to make sure nobody's getting hurt. But actually, that's not the point.

The point is, that God appearantly made humans this way. God had absolute power in shaping humans to affirm his ideals, but intentionally made them sinful. He told Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the tree, claiming that they would die if they ate from it, but as they were incapable of distinguishing good and evil, he knew that they were eventually gonna eat the fruit any way. Because they didn't know better and had no way of knowing better. Also that warning was a lie (they didn't die, but gained knowledge of good and evil, which is exactly what Satan/the snake told them). You might argue they died eventually, but that's usually not how we use this sentence. Their death was not immediately caused by eating the fruit. Of course them eating the fruit resulted in their death, but that's like pointing a gun to your head and telling you not to eat an apple, killing you when you do and claiming it was suicide. They died, because God banished them from paradise for eating the apple. So if this story is true it is evidence of god breaking two of his own laws (killing people and lying to people). This is not the behaviour of a good being. Yahwe definitely acts like a dick in Genesis 1.

So let's talk about Satan and his role in the story:

Satan didn't break any of the common rules of our societies. He found out that Eve had been lied to by God and did the right thing: telling her that this was untrue and telling her that she would gain knowledge of good and evil, which was the immediate effect of eating the fruit. And that's all Satan did in Genesis 1.

Okay, so this is something I thought of a while ago, and I hadn't heard of it before.


Premise: Those who are innocent automatically go to heaven


"innocent" is defined as someone who could not have reasonably known about God or the bible (i.e. babies, indigenous tribes people, severely mentally retarded people etc.)


The conclusion is then to strive to make all people fit into this "innocent" category. Mothers should kill their babies before they grow up and have a chance of becoming a nonbeliever, people should destroy all of the bibles and any other evidence of Christianity so that no one could reasonably know about God or the bible.


Notes on this argument:


Don't even start with that "The evidence for God is all around you" bullshit from Romans because I could easily magic wand away that evidence with a severely retarded person or a baby, and you also have to know about Jesus in order for you to accept him as your lord and savior, or else there was no point of him coming here in the first place. Also don't even try that "The bible obviously doesn't tell a mother to kill her child" or "killing/destroying the bible is wrong; you will go to hell for an action like that". One, any decent mother would probably gladly suffer an eternity in Hell if it meant her child was guaranteed a one-way ticket to heaven; the same concept is applicable for the "killing/destroying the bible is wrong...". If you knew an action could potentially guarantee all of humanity a free trip to heaven, you should probably feel obligated to do so, even if it lands you in Hell... I mean come on, that's like 10 Billion : 1 ratio of Heaveners to Hellers (If one person was able to ensure that everyone was indeed innocent, but even a significantly lower ratio is still more than sufficient for this argument).

XxSabrinaxX:
Most who reply aren't going to have their minds changed, obviously. I personally, am not here to change anyone's mind at least and you don't need to have an education to talk about something that's interesting.

That's true, but I don't want to make an argument when I'm ignorant of the subject. So far, I've been looking at pagan roots (El-Shaddai in the Bible) and slavery. But New Testament is kind of... murky waters, to me lol.

XxSabrinaxX:
Do it for the lurkers
Edit: Mind if step in for you against NnennaG6?

Sure. You can step in if you like. As for creating a topic, I'm not educated enough for that, I think. Most of my research so far is OT, and if I can't even convince the one theist I'm debating now, what hope do I have for others?

TATIME:
Because every other religion is about a God that's INVISIBLE and the one representing this God will just say so much but unable to lay unforgettable precedence for followers to emulate!

You've not really disproved any other religion from this post to be honest.

XxSabrinaxX:
I've got it now .
Composition of Mark:

Unique to Mark: 3%

Shared between just Mark and Luke: 3%

Shared between just Mark and Matthew: 18%

Shared between all three: 76%

Composition of Matthew:

Unique: 20%

Matthew and Luke: 24%

Matthew and Mark: 10%

All three: 46%

Composition of Luke:

Unique: 35%

Luke and Mark: 1%

Luke and Matthew: 23%

All three: 41%
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#/media/File%3ARelationship_between_synoptic_gospels-en.svg
You should make a topic out of this

Thanks. Although, given the current state of my argument against NnennaG6, I'm afraid I wouldn't do very well here

XxSabrinaxX:
Hope I'm not interrupting, Nnenna. But i think you should be careful since the above isn't quite true.
Multiple accounts shouldn't just be contemporary but independent and with that there's still some skepticism. After all, if a dozen of my friends saw a UFO then we're contemporary but not independent. However, if many random people saw the same UFO, it doesn't mean it's true either if you only have eyewitness reports. You'd treat it with a grain of salt where plausible things could be recorded as historical but implausible things wouldn't be... not without additional hard evidence.

Oh, thanks. Mind if I ask— last I read, I'm pretty confident Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark, but do we know how much?

NnennaG6:
No, they don't
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php

This wasn't very compelling at all on the issue of why the women went, whether there were two men or one... Luke and John contradict each other on Mary Magdalene and the issue of Jesus's body. They're assuming why the authors left parts out, with no basis that I see— they've got limited ink? Really? They wrote this over the span of years and it's the most important text they had. What's one more year if it got a better, fuller narrative? And there's no evidence that the authors knew they were leaving bits out. I don't find this to be a great answer.

NnennaG6:
And alive during the lifetime of Jesus and/or those who knew him personally and were subjects of the gospel narratives. In other words, contemporary.

Prove that. We don't know who the authors were, so where are you getting that?

NnennaG6:
It was widespread enough that the Jews conspired to kill Christ. And you wouldn’t argue that it grew rapidly over the next few decades despite it being illegal to believe and propagate Christianity, would you?

As far as I'm aware, no source but the Bible says that the Jews wanted Jesus dead. Got anything there?

I don't see how this in any way answers my point. Jesus was Jewish. The earliest parts of the New Testament are decades after when he died. So where are you getting that Christianity was widespread by the 30s CE?

NnennaG6:
Judaism is mostly true, except one important detail, so I’m with you here. But keep in mind that I’m using that fact as evidence for a particular historical claim, not a religion in general. The point is that millions of people came to believe a remarkable historical claim in a very short time, despite extreme persecution for the very belief in that claim.

One very, very important detail that makes the two faiths incompatible. And that a lot of people believed it, even in a short period of time, isn't a good argument to me. Islam had that too. It took Christianity until... 150? Somewhere thereabouts... to become anyone's state religion. That's at least 120 years after Jesus. Within one century of the founding of Islam, you had the entire Umayyad Caliphate. Classical Hindu ideas spread throughout India in about 200 years. I mean, even smaller movements such as the rapid decline in the popularity of Catholicism in some nations in favor of Protestantism is something. So that's just not that remarkable to me. Even if it were rarer, then it's got nothing to do with veracity necessarily.

NnennaG6:
How much has Branch Davidianism grown since the early 90s? You can’t see how this bolsters my position? You’re making my arguments for me. Persecution against Branch Davidians resulted in exactly what we would expect from a religion based on false claims, and what would have happened to Christianity if Christ hadn’t resurrected. But that kind of persecution did not slow down the growth of Christianity, as it did with the Branch Davidians.

My point that was just because people are persecuted and stay firm doesn't mean that they're correct. I've seen this argument for Muhammad, and Islam is a rapidly growing religion in terms of population.

NnennaG6:
No they don’t.

Yes, they do
https://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

NnennaG6:
Right, written by contemporaries

Contemporary: "existing, occurring, or living at the same time;belonging to the same time". These people were decades after Jesus.

NnennaG6:
It was widely accepted during the lifetimes of those who were alive when Christ was, in other words, contemporaries.

No, it wasn't. The 30s CE did not have widespread Christianity. Where is your source on that?

NnennaG6:
I’m using the fact that so many people believed it despite violent hostility to lend credence to the notion that the gospels were reliable and accurate in that time. I don’t mean to say that it’s true because people believed, but rather that we would expect people to believe in such a hostile environment only if they could be reasonably certain that it’s true. But this fact only bolsters the case and is actually unnecessary as evidence for Christianity.

This is better evidence for Judaism than Christianity, considering they've been persecuted for longer, and even by Christians. Also, the followers of David Koresh faced hostility too, because they were certain that he was right. I don't find this to be compelling at all.

NnennaG6:
The multiply attested, corroborated, contemporary accounts of Christ known as the gospels, which exist with no contradictory contemporary accounts. Also the wide acceptance of Christ’s divinity in Judea and the Roman Empire despite the violent hostility toward Christians in that time and place.

The Gospels contradict one another, though, and they're all decades after any crucifixion, written by people who weren't eyewitnesses, and Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark.

And it wasn't widely accepted for quite some time. I mean, 60s CE, Nero blamed the Great Fire on them. Even if it were widely accepted, so what? That's an argument ad populum.

NnennaG6:
Because all the evidence indicates that it is.

Can I ask what evidence?

NnennaG6:
Because it’s true.

Brilliant. How do you know Christianity is true?

The logical conclusion
Many are familiar with Occam’s Razor, which states that, all things being equal, one should not seek complex explanations when more simple ones are available. Few dispute that these other stories predate the Judeo-Christian Bible, or that the Bible is full of massive contradictions, so we really have two main explanations:

God created all these stories and characters thousands of years before the Bible in order to trick people, and then created new stories and characters that were almost exactly the same. But the version that went into the Bible—even with all the contradictions and immoral teachings—is the actual word of God. …OR…

The Bible was created during a time where stories were orally passed down over thousands of years. Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these. This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna. The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil, but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to but no longer believe in.

If you hadn’t been taught Christianity since you were a young child, which of these two explanations would make the most sense to you?

Note from the author: The goal of this page is not to say God is evil or bad. The point is to show that he is imaginary, created by humans, and to use the blatant reproductions, inconsistencies, and immoral teachings of the Bible to show that the Bible is false, and was written by man. God is not at fault here; there is no reason to believe anything like God exists at all. We simply made it all up because 1) we are afraid of death and, 2) we can use such beliefs to control people.

This was taken from an atheist blog. Have fun reading it:
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-bible-is-fiction-a-collection-of-evidence/#gs.4nGnK4E

Similarities to Other Stories

The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. This would be obvious if it weren’t for early indoctrination of these beliefs into children, which usually makes them unassailable as adults.

In this short piece I’ll attempt to show extraordinary similarities with regard to two of the most important Biblical narratives: the Genesis story and the character of Jesus Christ.

The Book of Genesis’s Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier
Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:
1. God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
2. God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
3. God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
4. The ark would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
5. A great rain covered the land with water.
6. The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
7. The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
8. The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
9. The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It’s not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the ark, and a single man being chosen by God to build the ark. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon — hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.

Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story? And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible?

Jesus’s Story is an Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous Characters
Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.

1. Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.
2. Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world.
3. Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a woman who had not had sex with a man, and was depicted riding a donkey. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles, and was killed and resurrected, after which time he became immortal.
4. Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.
5. Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross-like symbol.
6. Mithra‘s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.
7. Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.
8. Buddha‘s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.
9. Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.

The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did.

Unavoidable contradictions
Not only was the Bible taken largely and blatantly from previous stories, but there are contradictions so massive that they defy belief. Here are just a few of them.

1. Noah’s Ark: The story of the Ark is that a pair of every animal on earth was put on the ship. Forgetting for a second the fact that the story came directly from the Epic of Gilgamesh, keep in mind we’re being asked to believe that two 500-year-old people are caring for tens of thousands of animals. And where did they keep the food? How did they keep the poisonous snakes from biting the other animals? And where did they get the polar bears, alligators, and thousands of other animals that that don’t live in the Middle East?

2. The Angel’s Message: In Matthew 1:20 it says the Angel spoke to Joseph. In Luke 1:28 he spoke to Mary. Which was it?

3. Mary’s Virginity: The Hebrew word ‘Almah’, which people took to mean virgin, actually means ‘young woman of marriage age’. And there are plenty of indications that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

4. The Census: The authors of the Bible are trying so hard to get Jesus born in Bethlehem that they craft a story about a census. They say that Joseph had to travel back to his father’s homeland in order to register for it. Can you seriously imagine—in any period let alone then—asking the entire country to travel back their father’s hometown to register for a census? It’s completely impossible. The author of the story put it in there because they needed Jesus born in that city. Plus, historians note that the Romans kept extraordinary records, and there wasn’t even a census at that time. It’s completely fabricated, and for obvious reasons.

5. Jesus and the Family: The Bible says honor your father and mother, yet Jesus says you must hate your father, mother, wife, children, and even your own life to be a disciple, and says to call no man on earth your father. (MT 10:35-37, LK 12:51-53, 14:26, MT 23:9)

6. God and Murder: God says killing is wrong, yet he advocates genocide. (EX 34:11-14, LV 26:7-9)

7. God and Slavery: We all know slavery to be wrong, yet God openly advocates it. (GN 17:12, EX 12:43, EX: 21:1, EX 21:20, EX 21:32, LV 22:10, LV 25:44, LK 7:2, CL 3:22)

8. Jesus’s Heritage: There are two different genealogies for Jesus given in the Bible, and they don’t match. One is curiously given through Joseph, which is strange since he’s not Jesus’s father. Why give a genealogy through someone who isn’t related to you?

9. The Passover: It’s widely understood that God is supposed to be all-seeing and all-knowing. If that’s true, then why did he need people to mark their houses with blood in order to keep from killing their babies inside?

10. Kill Your Son to Prove You Love Me: God told Abraham to kill his son to prove that he loved God. Abraham raised the knife to him, about to do it, and God called it off—pleased that he would have done it. Does that sound like a moral God to you?

This is just a tiny sample of the inconsistencies and moral problems with the Bible. There are far more linked in the notes. But don’t take my word for any of this. Go to the passages. Read the material. It’s all there.

Nagging questions

1. How is Jesus’s crucifixion the ultimate sacrifice if he isn’t dead? He has been immortal since the beginning of time, and he’s still alive and immortal today, so where’s the sacrifice?
2. If Jesus removed our sins with his (see above) “sacrifice”, then how come we still have to avoid sin and accept him as our savior to avoid an eternity in hell? What did it accomplish?
3. Why does the Bible talk constantly about how to manage slaves, how to kill one’s enemies, and how to avoid making God angry, but there’s not much focus at all on seemingly obvious things like, “Thou Shalt Not Harm a Child”?
4. I know the Ark was supposed to be large, but the world currently has an estimated 8,700,000 species of life form. And you needed two of each
5. Forgetting just the numbers problem, how did the species that only exist (and still exist) in South America, and Antartica, and Australia, etc., all make it to the Ark?
6. What’s the direct, non-hand-waving explanation for the suffering and death of roughly 9 million children per year in a world supposedly ruled by a kind and loving God?
7. When Wikipedia can be updated by a random human, for billions of people in mere seconds, why has God left his book filled with stories of slavery, rape, and genocide from thousands of years ago?

LordReed:
It is finished. And the man died. LMFAO!

Lol. I don't know who got shamed more in this thread. Elidaxziel or anaso9

NPComplete:
Anas09 is deeply frustrated. You guys have to understand her.

It is hard being where she is in life right now. Shiloh is not doing doing it for her anymore. The last one was probably her tenth year there and she is not getting what she wanted. No husband is coming. Even all her initial good Christian act here has not paid off. None of her fellow Christian males thought it was good enough for them. I don't blame them though. There is always a miasma of toxicity that so surrounds her even when she tries to pretend to be good. Most of them will choose an atheist lady here before they will deign to give her a once over. Life is generally frustrating for her. So she comes online every time to remind herself she has one nonexistent mansion somewhere. Surely there's an afterlife where things are better. That's what she tells herself.

So anytime she sees any religion or argument that jeopardizes her free mansion, she loses it. She starts cursing. She is well aware that the best things in life have eluded her and will keep doing so owing to her attitude. So she curses and curses and hopes others will fall to her station so she can have company. Misery loves company.

Guys try to understand her. Pity her. All her lashing out is just a cry for help.

Hell no .

NPComplete:
This one that doesn't have enough brain cells to even understand what obsession means thinks he has said something witty.

You finally crawled out of your hole again today to amuse us with your dumbness. Unfortunately for u, u have a competition and he is doing a better job at being stupid than u have been doing in the past few months. His name is OpenYourEyes1. You guys should get together and start a club. Call it The League of Morons. Or Knights of the Order of Morons. Or Morons of the Roundtable. Or anything with morons in it.

I'd respectfully disagree with you sir. The Lord of the Order of Morons and Victims of Cerebral Palsy remains ElidaxZiel.