First, nice paraphrasing what you say are gods perfect words. He would be pissed at you fudging them to protect Donny…if he existed. You fucked up big time. These are the commandments dummy….

#1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

#2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

#3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

#4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (That day was Saturday.)

#5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

#6. Thou shalt not kill.

#7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

#8. Thou shalt not steal.

#9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

#10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Now that he’s president and has murdered thousands, which of these has Trump not broken repeatedly?

1. He has always put himself before any god.
2. He made a gold idol of himself and displayed it for you to worship.
3. He has only ever misused the name of god. He wouldn’t know how to use it in any way besides as a sword or shield.
4. He fucks porn stars on the sabbath, and cheats at golf, and business…he’s never kept anything holy in his life, especially the sabbath.
5. He’s said some terrible things about his immigrant parents and by not fighting the charges but paying millions in fines has admitted they were racist bastards.
6. He killed hundreds as collateral damage from his intended targets for murder.
7. Adultery….he’s never been with any woman he didn’t cheat on, especially all those immigrants he married.
8. Theft…Convicted repeatedly of theft by fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions.
9. Has never given honest testimony or statements in his life, he’s incapable of honesty.
10. He covets everything he sees, especially his friend’s wives that he brags about trying to sleep with and their land he tries to steal.

What was your point? That rapist DJT is really the anti-Christ? 😂

Side note, his home in Florida is seeing a number of biblical plagues…disease like malaria and leprocy are becoming rampant (thanks to anti science health policies), the seas are boiling (over 101 degrees), and a plague of semi-aquatic reptiles are decimating wildlife (pythons), rivers are turning red (https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/florida-creek-red-blood), livestock pestilence (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7140416/mad-cow-disease-florida-us-outbreak-usda/)…just need darkness (wait for the next hurricane). Sounds like any first born children should probably leave the state immediately! 😂

If I remember correctly God said something to the effect of "Thou shalt not kill".

What other weapons do you have left in your arsenal that your God gave you?

"please don't try to impose your ignorant misunderstandings on others." Your the one implying woman and men are to stupid to use other forms of contraceptives.

"power grab over reproduction rights." Lol again if the woman don't want a child use contraceptives. Its her choice... You are the one saying they for some reason are to dumb to do that.

Did the woman pay those men to beat her ? Was it her choice to take the life of her child ? That argument of yours have been smashed to pieces countless times by people much smarter than me and you. Look it up.

"thou shalt not kill"

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

There is a lot of scholarly research that says it is historical, especially in the last 80 years or so. There are volumes upon volumes of work, and there are a lot of things that deserve an honest and indepth discussion.

Almost all skeptical scholars affirm that Jesus was a historical person and that His disciples had an experience which convinced them that He was raised from the dead. Many agree that a group of women discovered the empty tomb. The origin of Christianity is something which must be accounted for, historically. You can't just wave your hand over it and say its all nonsense.

2) I know Christianity is a joke religion invented for political control by Constantine. That is a verifiable, historical fact.

On what do you base that conclusion?

3) mythos cannot verify mythos. You say Satan created other religions (many before Chritianity existed) to trick them out of worshiping Yahweh....why isn't that likely true of Christianity?

Because of the person of Jesus Christ, who is verified to be the Messiah from many lines of evidence. Some of these would include the fulfillment of dozens of prophecies, His life and ministry, and His resurrection from the dead.

4) not true. Verified truth can be proven and defended against being twisted with fact and evidence, at least to those willing to examine actual evidence and not rely on only propaganda and myth. God (if he existed) should have more backbone, and a clear, unambiguous word/voice. ( Your position seems to be he's not willing to stand behind his word and prefers most people burn in hell for their God given inability to distinguish which is which.)
How is it different from politicians? They aren't empowered by all powerful, vengeful gods....clearly neither are clergy.

I'm not sure why you think you are holding the keys of facts and evidence in your hand, first of all. Can your worldview account for these things? You would need to establish that before we can talk about what "verified truth" is. What is your worldview, by the way? I am assuming it is scientific materialism. Have you ever looked into whether it is correct or not?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

5) ...you shall stone them to death.....thou shalt not kill. Not so clear.

I think that is easily explained. The laws you are looking at were civil laws which governed the nation of Israel. Consider that our society has a law against murder, yet we execute criminals. Same concept.

6) only those who believe are saved...so clearly the sin of disbelief is not erased and is worse than all others. If it's not automatic, he didn't die for MY sins or yours, he's trading being saved (from something he told you exists with zero evidence) for belief and obedience.

None of your sins would be erased if you reject Christ. You would be paying not only for unbelief, but for all of the other ones too. Unbelief is like any other sin execept that the consequence of the sin prevents you from receiving forgiveness. It is exactly like expecting your cancer to be cured without taking the cure.

Jesus died for the sins of the world, including mine and yours, but you cannot partake of the atonement unless you receive Him as Lord and Savior.

My evidence is not just what we are discussing. Jesus Christ is alive and He is with me every single day of my life. He comforts me in my distress. He encourages me when I feel stuck. He gives me strength to overcome things I otherwise couldn't. He gives me wisdom for every problem and situation. He gives me love for those I find difficult to love. He fills my heart with generosity when I want to be stringy. He helps me do the right thing when I am going to fall short. This is not abstract, but a living reality in my life that grows more and more. He has utterly changed me and made me into a completely different person just like He said He would.

7) things that only work if you believe are hokum or placebo, things that only exist if you believe enough are pure fantasy.

Without buying your system, I have no sin to repent so I should go straight to heaven and collect my $200.

That's kind of like saying you don't believe in the law so you think you won't be punished when you break it. You have to account for your sin whatever you believe you have any or not. Your conscience, however, tells you that you have done wrong things.

9) You have cancer and some guy tells you God sent a car (he just needs $50 for telling you about it), it's invisible, and will take you to the cure, but you must believe the car exists, and when you die sitting in the freezing street he says it's your fault for not believing enough in God's magic cars. Duh. I'll buy my own plane ticket and get myself there, not wait for ethereal magic cars.

Let's say that you got a sign that the car was legitimate, but you still stubbornly chose not to go. For instance, you had a dream that a green car with a florida license plate drove up to your house, and a middle age woman got out and came up to your door and told you she was sent by God to take you to the cancer cure, and then it really happened. Does that change anything for you?

Mostly the questions are for you, in hope you might see the contradiction and self reinforcing mythos, but your answers do offer insight to your (and other people's) intractable mindsets. Thanks

God had revealed Himself to me, personally, and verified the scripture in my as true. I know that He loves me, personally, and I know that He loves you too. My hearts desire is that you would know that love. That is my mindset, primarily.

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

2) I know Christianity is a joke religion invented for political control by Constantine. That is a verifiable, historical fact.

3) mythos cannot verify mythos. You say Satan created other religions (many before Chritianity existed) to trick them out of worshiping Yahweh....why isn't that likely true of Christianity?

4) not true. Verified truth can be proven and defended against being twisted with fact and evidence, at least to those willing to examine actual evidence and not rely on only propaganda and myth. God (if he existed) should have more backbone, and a clear, unambiguous word/voice. ( Your position seems to be he's not willing to stand behind his word and prefers most people burn in hell for their God given inability to distinguish which is which.)
How is it different from politicians? They aren't empowered by all powerful, vengeful gods....clearly neither are clergy.

5) ...you shall stone them to death.....thou shalt not kill. Not so clear.

6) only those who believe are saved...so clearly the sin of disbelief is not erased and is worse than all others. If it's not automatic, he didn't die for MY sins or yours, he's trading being saved (from something he told you exists with zero evidence) for belief and obedience.

7) things that only work if you believe are hokum or placebo, things that only exist if you believe enough are pure fantasy.

Without buying your system, I have no sin to repent so I should go straight to heaven and collect my $200.

9) You have cancer and some guy tells you God sent a car (he just needs $50 for telling you about it), it's invisible, and will take you to the cure, but you must believe the car exists, and when you die sitting in the freezing street he says it's your fault for not believing enough in God's magic cars. Duh. I'll buy my own plane ticket and get myself there, not wait for ethereal magic cars.

Mostly the questions are for you, in hope you might see the contradiction and self reinforcing mythos, but your answers do offer insight to your (and other people's) intractable mindsets. Thanks

If not for the passage, recently pointed out to me, where Jesus said clearly that he was not there to replace the laws of the old testament, and any transgressions were still damnable, (is that the right word?) I would, and did agree with that. Sadly, that excuse has been shown to be in error.

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…

Edit: Also, that ignores that many contradictions are in the old testament....like thou shalt not kill....except when it says thou must kill. No Jesus to confuse things yet, just pure contradiction.

@shinyblurry, respectfully,
The bible lies. It's stories were probably not meant to be an 'explanation' of reality in the first place, but more likely were created as fables to explain morality...thanks Constantine. (So you know, he's the emperor that ACTUALLY compiled the bible together from various oral traditions, as a political ploy to consolidate religions to make them easier to control.)

You and I have been over this claim repeatedly...Not a whit of EVIDENCE has ever been provided to me, only idiots regurgitating nonsense from 2000+ years ago-
(nonsense made up mostly by Arab/Semitic nomads thousands of years before they were written, likely made up as morality tales, also to 'explain' how they thought certain things worked before the scientific method came around to actually explain reality...examples, the sun and universe spin around the flat earth, the sun rides on a chariot, witches and demons are responsible for any bad thing that happens, etc.)
-idiots who change their interpretations when their current interpretation is shown clearly and undeniably to be completely wrong and indicative of a lack of basic understanding. As evidence goes, that's evidence that religion is wrong and harmful, not that it's correct and helpful.

If god is going to provide evidence of his existence to me, he's taking his sweet time and allowing the issue to be confused with 'facts' and 'reality'. (I'm assuming that's what you meant, and not that there would be proof of polytheism, as you wrote).

The sooner you come to grips with all that, the sooner you can stop saying ridiculous things as 'fact' and ignoring fact as either 'willful suppression of god's grace' or 'Satan tricking you'. It's odd to me that no religious people ever think the bible itself might be a creation of Satan, tricking you into terrible behavior and hatred of 'infidels', encouraging and causing behavior it specifically forbids (Eg-stoning to death/thou shalt not kill...worshiping crosses and or statues of Jesus/thou shalt not create any graven (carved) images).

I hope reality will provide everyone with evidence of it's existence, and people will stop suppressing the truth because they love their religion.

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

This is just a nitpick but I think genocide would be covered by "Thou shalt not kill/murder."

I'd start by revising the ten commandments to:

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not kill
This commandment has been left intentionally blank

Maybe people might take the hint this time. The last commandment is there to reflect the possible need for future revision and the open source nature of the commandments.

On the surface the Ten Commandments seem reasonable and “good.” However, just as Stephen Fry said the Ten Commandments COMMAND under punishment of death. So as a result there is no room for an individual to use their brain to think and reason; to develop optimal moral decisions for any given situation for themselves (want to emphasize individual reasoning). Take Thou shalt not kill for example. I can think of an example that it would seem perfectly logical to kill an individual.

There is a suicide bomber about to blow himself/herself up in a busy market, you have the ability to kill this person and save many innocent lives and this is the only way you can save innocent lives. It would seem ok to kill this person since he is going to kill himself anyways.

My point is WE as a people regardless of who we are have the ability to develop our own “moral barometer”, and make decisions on our own. So the Ten Commandments have NO bearing on human life in reality.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
>> ^morelenmir:

It has always bothered me the hypocrisy of the Christian soldier/cop, as if wearing a uniform exempts a person from "THOU SHALT NOT KILL".



It has always bothered me when someone would take a modern translation of a thousands year old text and use it at face value to make a retarded point.

in the original hebrew, ratsach is used in this verse that some translations translate (how redundant) to kill. It is more accurately translated as murder. I would hope i wouldnt have to explain the differences between the words kill and murder.........but we'll see

>> ^morelenmir:
Surely, working from this shockingly ignorant woman's stance would it not be a GREATER sacrifice for a non-afterlife-believing Atheist to die for his country? If an Atheist does not believe in a continued discarnate existence then surely what they give up becomes worth even more?
She seems to be suggesting an Atheist's life - and death - are worth less honor than a Christian/Deist. That is a horrible thing to be allowed to broadcast.


So many Christians really only care about their own kind, and if they presume to care about others it's typically only because they're attempting to convert them (while destroying their culture).

It has always bothered me the hypocrisy of the Christian soldier/cop, as if wearing a uniform exempts a person from "THOU SHALT NOT KILL".

^MaxWilder

1) Who rolled the dice, where did the die come from? How did the die come to have impact? Reiterate the statistical argument to me however you want, you can't get around a supernatural origin an point zero. Just because "science may never be able to prove or disprove" that point, my belief that God fills in the blank is no less valid in my own beliefs.

2) The writers of the New Testament were Jews. If you read carefully the account of Jesus' life, its events are not exactly high on the priority list to jot down for those who did not believe. Those who rejected Christ at the time thought Him irrelevant at best, scandalous at worst. Do you seriously think there should be a police blotter in Jerusalem at the time recording the temporary disruption of money changers and vendors at the temple? Do you not see a motive for non-believing Jews to conveniently omit him? "Yeah, there was this man of God going around and healing folks, but then we killed him. Let's write down the first part, but not the second."

3) The "Thou Shalt Not Kill/Murder" argument against the Bible is an old standby. I posted on a different video the distinction made in Romans 13 that God empowers governments to, among other things, "bring punishment to the wrongdoer." The 10 commandments, and Jesus' subsequent teachings are clearly applicable on a personal/individual level. It would be a sin for me to go to war with the express purpose of working out my own desires of hatred or revenge. According to Jesus, even having the hatred in the first place is the same sin as murder.

4) You accuse me of knowing little about the Bible, when you use convenient shreds of it to build your own arguments. Peter's denial of Christ had a very definite place and purpose. Christ bore the suffering of the cross completely on His own, even suffering separation from God the Father as He bore the sins of the world. If you bother reading any further, Peter is reconciled to Christ and given a mission to establish the Church and watch after Jesus' sheep, the sting of the previous betrayal now fueling conviction he didn't have before. By all accounts, each of the 12 (save John) met a violent end. You have not refuted my argument.

My whole purpose in this thread is to better understand why it is so important for you science-minded atheists to deconstruct religion, Christianity in particular. Why are we such a nuisance to you? Does your keen intellect not allow you to ignore our "ignorance?" Are your feelings hurt when we believe in a heaven and a hell, separated by belief in Christ? Do the actions of a few of our outlying members truly outweigh the collective good of the movement? Are you focusing on what you perceive as hypocrisy?

I find it ironic that I am the one most often accused of intolerance.

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
Wow. I'm accused of making lazy arguments, when some of the best you guys can throw at me is that we have 100% odds of living on the planet we live on under the conditions that currently exist. That's not lazy?
"Well, we're here, so how we got here is irrelevant."

Let's be clear about this. No scientist has ever or would ever say that "how" we got here is irrelevant. Why do you think so many people are fighting to make sure natural selection and the theory of evolution are taught in schools?

No, what's irrelevant is the "odds" against life developing. As with an earlier example that you seem to have ignored (big surprise), imagine you roll a die a thousand times and write down the numbers you get in order. Now show that list to someone and say "What are the odds against rolling those numbers in that exact order?" The odds against it would be enormous! But that doesn't mean God made those numbers happen, it happened because the die was rolled and there was a record. It doesn't matter what the odds against doing it again are, because it already happened. It took an estimated 13.7 billion years for life to develop to this point. A whole lot of crazy shit can happen in that amount of time, with an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and who knows how many planets and moons around each star?

So what are the odds against you having rolled that sequence of numbers on the die? Zero. It happened. There are no odds against it. The odds against it happening again may be huge, but it happened once and there's no wagering against that. So the odds against life developing on Earth? Zero. It happened. Pick something else to base your silly arguments on.


"I do take exception to how off-handedly dismiss the Bible, though. The Bible has been validated through historical accuracy of events depicted, is a unique document in all of human history, and is validated through the fulfillment of prophecy over time."

There are massive and glaring historical inaccuracies, or at the very least, completely uncorroborated by contemporary historians. There is no evidence of Herod's Massacre of the Innocents, no evidence that a "city" named Nazareth existed at that time, no evidence that there was a tradition of letting a prisoner go free (when the crowd supposedly chose Barabbas instead of Jesus), no record of a disruption in the temple during passover (when Jesus drove out the money changers), no record of a prophet who had thousands of people going to listen to him.

There were a number of good writers in those times, many of whom wrote on the events of the times. Nobody mentioned a person resembling Jesus at all until many decades after his supposed death.


"The lazy argument probably on the tip of your tongue is that the Bible has been altered a bazillion times to make it look like it got the story right. You've got quite a steep slope to climb to make that argument. The Bible includes 40 authors, 3 languages, 3 continents, and a authorship span of 1500 years. Studies have verified that the transcripts have held up without material alteration according to the earliest known records."

You are off your rocker. All you have to do is look at a few passages from a few different translations to know that is complete bunk. Consider for instance the most famous of the ten commandments: Thou shalt not kill - King James Version. That is also translated as "You shall not murder." (New International Version) Consider the difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Killing can be self defense, or what a soldier does in war. So making a new translation that uses the word "murder" instead will allow priests the justification to let people go become soldiers, or perhaps use the death penalty ("It's not murder, it's justice.") Huge difference in just that one translation, and you think that doesn't happen all over the bible? You know nothing. And religion depends on you remaining ignorant and pliant. Why do you think it took so long to translate the bible into English? Because before that happened, the priests had complete and utter control over the interpretation. Now they have to twist the words around and create convoluted justifications for weird stories there. It's not as easy, and fewer people are buying their bullshit every day.


"I'm still not impressed with the answers."

You won't be impressed with anything that anyone has to tell you about the truth behind religion until you stop holding on to the idea that blind faith is a good thing. Faith in something without any evidence is never considered a good thing by anybody, with the sole exception of religion.

If you want to be impressed, start looking for real evidence that what you believe about God is true. And when you find that there is none, anywhere, except for the dubious scribblings of some unknown authors many centuries ago, maybe then you'll be impressed. But I suspect your head is just too far under the sand for that to happen.


"If you want to get into a theological debate on whether my Bible is rubbish...I ask a similar question. Why would Jesus' disciples subject themselves to being cultural outcasts and ultimately suffer fates of excile and execution if they didn't truly believe in the message? Wouldn't at least one of them, seeing their reflection in the executioner's sword, yell out "Just kidding!" unless they passionately knew theirs was the most important message of all time?"

You don't know the bible at all do you? "And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." Who knows how many others abandoned their belief after supposedly being in the presence of the Christ himself, and we are all asked to devote our lives to him without even having met the guy? Again I call bullshit. If God wants me to believe in him, he can come tell me why himself.

But the messages I'm getting lately are quite the opposite. Just a few years ago I discovered there is no evidence outside of the bible that the person we call Jesus even existed.

"The Bible depicts Herod, the Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search and kill the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history supports such a story. Pontius Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or several decades after, ever records such a human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known historical record speaks for itself."

- Jim Walker, nobeliefs.com

The Jews were very good record keepers, and these glaring omissions are very telling.

On the other hand, there are many, many legendary mythological figures, from Mithras to Hercules, that have a very similar story to Jesus. I see absolutely no reason why Jesus isn't just one more myth that will eventually fade into time and be taught along side Greek and Roman mythology.