A place for good non-believers

[lostguest]

Apologists often say that God doesn't send non-believers to hell, they send themselves by not wanting to be with God. But if that is the case then non-believers don't want to go to hell either and yet they supposedly end up there anyway. So, why wouldn't God create a place for people who are otherwise just as good as believers but whose only "sin" was not believing or accepting God? Why would God create only two options in which one of them "punishes" equally people who do really evil things and people who may actually be better human beings than many Christians but simply do not believe in God.
To me it's the equivalent of someone inviting people to his birthday party and whoever decides to come will have lots of fun, food and everything else but whoever refuses the invitation gets sent to a North Korean prison for life.

[Divine Insight]

My analogy is very representative of what is happening. I could have used any subject and still applies. The problem is you are trying to define what makes sense, and you can only do that for yourself.

I only need to do it for myself. If the biblical God failed to convince me via "His Book" that he is real, then he's a failed God. And the Bible certainly failed to convinced me that it represents the directives, actions, or desires, of any intelligent being.

IMHO, the Biblical fables were written by an extremely ignorant patriarchal male-chauvinistic society that used their imaginary God to condone mistreating their own wives and daughters like inhuman objects. They also used their imaginary God as an excuse to kill anyone who disagrees with their highly immoral behavior.

It's disgusting and doesn't represent anything that I would ever even remotely consider worshiping as being the ideals of a supposedly "divine god".

Christianity is even worse with their highly immoral concept of Jesus being a sacrificial lamb of God.

Where your argument fails is in the fact that you already assume the Bible is the only source for knowledge on the subject.

My argument doesn't fail. On the contrary history proves that I'm right.

Even the Jews, Muslims, Catholics and the myriad of protesting Protestants clearly can't understand a single word of the biblical nonsense. They are living proof of the total absurdity of their own religions.

I'll spell out the analogy for you so you understand it. Read the book- read your Bible. take notes in class- take notes in Sunday school and service so you can go back and apply them to the Bible to get a better understanding. do any work given out- you can't just read the book, you have to answer questions that will be asked about the book. ask the professor questions- pray to God for the wisdom to understand the Bible. Or a person could do none of this and just blaim the professor.

You have no clue who you're talking to Sir.

You can read my life's story here if you like:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#524651

I was fully prepared to preach the "Word of God" and so I did ask questions, take notes, prayed to God, and did everything in my power to understand the biblical story so that I could help others understand it.

What I discovered was that it cannot be made to make sense no matter how hard you try, unless you're willing to be dishonest about it which I wasn't willing to be.

I have no choice but to honestly say that after extreme study of the Hebrew fables I can safely conclude that they have absolutely no merit whatsoever.

Anything short of that would be an outright lie.

In fact, often times when I went to the preachers for help with things they behave in a very typical manner. They would simply say that we must have faith that God has his reasons, and then they would start praying.

I wasn't about to become that kind of "preacher". To me that is totally shallow and simply doesn't work. All they were doing is confessing to me that even they can't answer the same questions I have.

BTW, my minor was in math, so yes I know a little something about calculus.

When then you should be fully aware that your analogy is an extremely dishonest one. So there's no excuse for you having made that analogy in the first place then.

Even the greatest clergy of all time have openly confessed that they have grave difficulties with many of the absurdities and contradictions in the Bible. They hold out faith that God will offer them explanations after they die.

Is that how calculus appeared to you? Were you hoping that after you die maybe your college professor could finally explain things to you? If that's the case then I'd stay that you didn't understand calculus very well. And perhaps that could justify you analogy of calculus with the bible.

But for those of us who understand calculus there is no workable analogy between calculus and the Bible.

[cubey]

So because God gave you all need to believe and you refused He’s at fault.

No,what he gave was unconvincing, one would think he could do better job considering who he claims to be.
The statements made in the bible are false, lies. like this one its not even true even if a true believer asks.
John chapter 14:12:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
This statement comes from the one who claims to be god so therefore when he says 'Whatever you ask in my name i will do it' that is the will of god.
I guarantee you this there will be a lot of things he won't do.
And if your going bring up some other scripture that says what you are asking for something that is not the will of god then you have demonstrated this scripture is a lie, and that the word of god is in contradiction.
also if your going say that this scripture was meant for a specific group like eleven he was talking to you are wrong because it says
'he who believes in me will also do the works that I do'

charles_hamm
If you took, say calculus and you refused to read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors fault for your lack of understanding?

You bare false witness against me, my knowledge of the bible and use of scripture that i have used in this thread demonstrate
that i have 'read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors'as you put it
The problem is you don't agree with me and you think your infalliable in your knowlage.

charles_hamm
You've made a positive assertion here, therefore the burden of proof falls on you, not me.

I did not make the positive assertion here you did when you said your belief exist as something real, something that mankind would actually have to listen to.
So present your evidence for this alleged thing you say we have to listen to.

charles_hamm I believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

How did you come to this conclusion?

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
BTW we have eradicated some diseases. So once again, nice try..

With secular science, nice try

You got me except for the fact that you can’t even remotely show that ALL the scientist were atheist, nor can you show that the funding for the research that led to these cures did not come from Christians.

It doesn't matter who does the work it was done with capitalistic materialism and secular science and not prayer not the bible or your God.
Stop being a thief and give credit were credit is due.

charles_hamm
Actually no you are incorrect here. Revelation 14 is only seen as a preview of Babylon falling. If you will read Revelation 19 you’ll see the reality of Hell. Living torment in the presence of God is not for all eternity. Separation from God in a lake of fire is. My advice is to read the entire book before quoting it.

I doubt you have, maybe you should use the bible, instead of interpret it to make it say what you want it to say.

I wasn't talking about Revelation 14
I was talking about Revelation 20
The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
as stated in Psalm 139
those thrown into the lake fire well be in a living torment enforced by God and in presence of God for all of eternity.
Psalm 139
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

charles_hamm
John 10:18 explained
No one can take my life from me- No one can force me to die.

No man can make that claim so therefore he is not a man.

charles_hamm
I lay down my life voluntarily- I sacrifice my life.

The act of taking one's life for the benefit of others 'altruistic suicide' guilty as charged.

charles_hamm
I have the right to lay it down when I want- I have the right to sacrifice my life when I want to.

Now he's just stating he has the right to commit altruistic suicide its still suicide.

charles_hamm
The power to take it again- the power to take my life that is sacrificed voluntarily back.

A power no man has, therefore he is not a man, a god-man maybe, but definitely not a man.
When all men can make these claim then can God can judge us by the standard he uses to judge Christ by.

charles_hamm
Now that the explanation is done I’ll address your comments. You are right God is not dead nor did God the Son die on the cross. Jesus the human died on the cross.

Foolish nonsense now you try to explain the trinity by creating a second Jesus.
Its the holy trinity not the holy quadnity. :facepalm:
Jesus is was ether dead or alive not both.
So did he pay and not pay for your debt to god this explanation makes a mockery of his sacrifice.

charles_hamm
I believe that you probably got confused because I did not include nature after the divinity and for that I apologize. I’ll start with the misconception that Jesus is a creation of God. Jesus is not a creation of God.
He is one part of a triune God. He is to be exact, God the Son. If you read Revelation 1:8 Jesus calls himself the Alpha and Omega. Jesus became a man on Earth. He did not, however, give up His place as God the Son.

No i have had to tell a number of Christians that the bible says Jesus is God and therefore cannot be a creation of God.
You know the ones i'm talkin about, those Christians that aren't true Christians

charles_hamm
His humanity is shown in Luke 2:7,Galatians 4:4, Matthew 4:2, and John 4:6 and 19:28.

You may be able to show this, but it doesn't prove he was a man.
Because he claims to have power that no man has He can be in no way less than the sum total of what he is and this statement is what makes him not a man.

charles_hamm
There are more verses if you need to see them that show He was a man. Your statement about being a God walking around in a bag of flesh is way off target. If He were only God then He could not die or He would not be eternal.

So your are saying god is forced to be eternal that he has the neither the power or freewill to commit suicide?

charles_hamm
The lambs were soulless creatures so they were never a pure, perfect and holy sacrifice

Leviticus 22:
21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.

charles_hamm
A child who dies in its crib is only sinless because it’s covered by the blood of Jesus’ death from birth due to the lack of a choice

A child who dies in its crib is sinless because it has kept the law and it doesn't matter that the child has made no choice.
The blood of Jesus if for those who violate the law, not for those who keep it.

charles_hamm
It never says He promised any of the people who heard the disciples preach that if they went and preached to someone else the same signs would be shown.

Open your eyes its right here.
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe:
what you are trying to make it say is this;
15 He said to the disciples, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany you my disciples who believe: In my name you 'disciples' will drive out demons; you 'disciples' will speak in new tongues; 18 you 'disciples' will pick up snakes with your hands; and when you 'disciples' drink deadly poison, it will not hurt you 'disciples' at all; you 'disciples' will place your hands on sick people, and they will get well.
And it just doesn't say that.
If i say to you charles_hamm 'And these signs will accompany those who believe' i'm i talking to you, about you, or am i talking to you about someone else?

charles_hamm
All right so if you just want an either do a or b then the proper response is a, be a Christian and help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law. Under 1 Peter 2:11-23 it tells you to live Godly in a pagan society. Verse 2:12 says “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us.� If you had continued on 18-21 tells you it is commendable to bear the pain of unjust suffering in the eyes of God. Even verse 16, which you quoted, tells you not to use your freedom to cover-up for evil. Option b actually is mislabeled as being the good Christian.

You are not living Godly in Germany if you break German law, to help the Jews.
Because Romans 13 says you are to obey the government, all governments.
But you are saying that 1 Peter 2:11-23 says you can break the law.
You can't have it both ways.
Just another demonstration that the bible is contradictory.

[charles_hamm]

So because God gave you all need to believe and you refused He’s at fault.

No,what he gave was unconvincing, one would think he could do better job considering who he claims to be.
The statements made in the bible are false, lies. like this one its not even true even if a true believer asks.
John chapter 14:12:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
This statement comes from the one who claims to be god so therefore when he says 'Whatever you ask in my name i will do it' that is the will of god.
I guarantee you this there will be a lot of things he won't do.
And if your going bring up some other scripture that says what you are asking for something that is not the will of god then you have demonstrated this scripture is a lie, and that the word of god is in contradiction.
also if your going say that this scripture was meant for a specific group like eleven he was talking to you are wrong because it says
'he who believes in me will also do the works that I do'

charles_hamm
If you took, say calculus and you refused to read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors fault for your lack of understanding?

You bare false witness against me, my knowledge of the bible and use of scripture that i have used in this thread demonstrate
that i have 'read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors'as you put it
The problem is you don't agree with me and you think your infalliable in your knowlage.

charles_hamm
You've made a positive assertion here, therefore the burden of proof falls on you, not me.

I did not make the positive assertion here you did when you said your belief exist as something real, something that mankind would actually have to listen to.
So present your evidence for this alleged thing you say we have to listen to.

charles_hamm I believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

How did you come to this conclusion?

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
BTW we have eradicated some diseases. So once again, nice try..

With secular science, nice try

You got me except for the fact that you can’t even remotely show that ALL the scientist were atheist, nor can you show that the funding for the research that led to these cures did not come from Christians.

It doesn't matter who does the work it was done with capitalistic materialism and secular science and not prayer not the bible or your God.
Stop being a thief and give credit were credit is due.

charles_hamm
Actually no you are incorrect here. Revelation 14 is only seen as a preview of Babylon falling. If you will read Revelation 19 you’ll see the reality of Hell. Living torment in the presence of God is not for all eternity. Separation from God in a lake of fire is. My advice is to read the entire book before quoting it.

I doubt you have, maybe you should use the bible, instead of interpret it to make it say what you want it to say.

I wasn't talking about Revelation 14
I was talking about Revelation 20
The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
as stated in Psalm 139
those thrown into the lake fire well be in a living torment enforced by God and in presence of God for all of eternity.
Psalm 139
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

charles_hamm
John 10:18 explained
No one can take my life from me- No one can force me to die.

No man can make that claim so therefore he is not a man.

charles_hamm
I lay down my life voluntarily- I sacrifice my life.

The act of taking one's life for the benefit of others 'altruistic suicide' guilty as charged.

charles_hamm
I have the right to lay it down when I want- I have the right to sacrifice my life when I want to.

Now he's just stating he has the right to commit altruistic suicide its still suicide.

charles_hamm
The power to take it again- the power to take my life that is sacrificed voluntarily back.

A power no man has, therefore he is not a man, a god-man maybe, but definitely not a man.
When all men can make these claim then can God can judge us by the standard he uses to judge Christ by.

charles_hamm
Now that the explanation is done I’ll address your comments. You are right God is not dead nor did God the Son die on the cross. Jesus the human died on the cross.

Foolish nonsense now you try to explain the trinity by creating a second Jesus.
Its the holy trinity not the holy quadnity. :facepalm:
Jesus is was ether dead or alive not both.
So did he pay and not pay for your debt to god this explanation makes a mockery of his sacrifice.

charles_hamm
I believe that you probably got confused because I did not include nature after the divinity and for that I apologize. I’ll start with the misconception that Jesus is a creation of God. Jesus is not a creation of God.
He is one part of a triune God. He is to be exact, God the Son. If you read Revelation 1:8 Jesus calls himself the Alpha and Omega. Jesus became a man on Earth. He did not, however, give up His place as God the Son.

No i have had to tell a number of Christians that the bible says Jesus is God and therefore cannot be a creation of God.
You know the ones i'm talkin about, those Christians that aren't true Christians

charles_hamm
His humanity is shown in Luke 2:7,Galatians 4:4, Matthew 4:2, and John 4:6 and 19:28.

You may be able to show this, but it doesn't prove he was a man.
Because he claims to have power that no man has He can be in no way less than the sum total of what he is and this statement is what makes him not a man.

charles_hamm
There are more verses if you need to see them that show He was a man. Your statement about being a God walking around in a bag of flesh is way off target. If He were only God then He could not die or He would not be eternal.

So your are saying god is forced to be eternal that he has the neither the power or freewill to commit suicide?

charles_hamm
The lambs were soulless creatures so they were never a pure, perfect and holy sacrifice

Leviticus 22:
21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.

charles_hamm
A child who dies in its crib is only sinless because it’s covered by the blood of Jesus’ death from birth due to the lack of a choice

A child who dies in its crib is sinless because it has kept the law and it doesn't matter that the child has made no choice.
The blood of Jesus if for those who violate the law, not for those who keep it.

charles_hamm
It never says He promised any of the people who heard the disciples preach that if they went and preached to someone else the same signs would be shown.

Open your eyes its right here.
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe:
what you are trying to make it say is this;
15 He said to the disciples, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany you my disciples who believe: In my name you 'disciples' will drive out demons; you 'disciples' will speak in new tongues; 18 you 'disciples' will pick up snakes with your hands; and when you 'disciples' drink deadly poison, it will not hurt you 'disciples' at all; you 'disciples' will place your hands on sick people, and they will get well.
And it just doesn't say that.
If i say to you charles_hamm 'And these signs will accompany those who believe' i'm i talking to you, about you, or am i talking to you about someone else?

charles_hamm
All right so if you just want an either do a or b then the proper response is a, be a Christian and help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law. Under 1 Peter 2:11-23 it tells you to live Godly in a pagan society. Verse 2:12 says “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us.� If you had continued on 18-21 tells you it is commendable to bear the pain of unjust suffering in the eyes of God. Even verse 16, which you quoted, tells you not to use your freedom to cover-up for evil. Option b actually is mislabeled as being the good Christian.

You are not living Godly in Germany if you break German law, to help the Jews.
Because Romans 13 says you are to obey the government, all governments.
But you are saying that 1 Peter 2:11-23 says you can break the law.
You can't have it both ways.
Just another demonstration that the bible is contradictory.

Before I address any of your points, I would like to clear something up. I was not implying "you" as in you Cubey. I was using "you" in a general sense to men anyone. I should have used "a person" instead to avoid any confusion. I will attempt to avoid this kind of confusion in the future. I will address your points in my next response to this; I just wanted to make sure you knew I was not refereing to you personally in my statement there.

[Divine Insight]

Before I address any of your points, I would like to clear something up. I was not implying "you" as in you Cubey. I was using "you" in a general sense to men anyone. I should have used "a person" instead to avoid any confusion. I will attempt to avoid this kind of confusion in the future. I will address your points in my next response to this; I just wanted to make sure you knew I was not refereing to you personally in my statement there.

But you are are making personal insinuations Charles, whether you realize it or not.

Your very position demands it.

You are proclaiming that if someone doesn't believe in the biblical God it can "only be" because they weren't willing to study it diligently enough. And so therefore you are accusing everyone who doesn't believe in the Bible as being a person who hasn't sincerely considered the Bible enough to study it diligently. That is a personal accusation aimed at everyone who has rejected the Bible as being utterly absurd.

History has already demonstrated to us the fallacy of your claim.

The Jews do not believe that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of Abraham.

Are you claiming then that the Jews are not willing to study the New Testament deeply enough to understand why Jesus is the son of God? That's baloney. I'm sure that the Jewish Rabbis have considered the New Testament in depth and have rejected it for solid reasons. In fact, I agree with them that the New Testament is totally incompatible with the Old Testament. Even the New Testament itself has Jesus rejecting the immoral teaching of the Old Testament God and replacing them with higher moral values.

The Old Testament had God directing people to judge each other and stone sinners and heathens to death. Jesus rejected the judging of others and taught people not to judge others and not to cast the first stone. The complete opposite of what had been attributed to the God of Abraham.

The Old Testament God condoned the seeking of revenge and taught people to seek an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

What did Jesus have to say about this?

Mathew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

That's blaspheme. Jesus was flatly renouncing the "Word of God" from the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jewish heathen inciting apostasy against the Jewish God of Abraham. There is no way that Jesus could have been the son of that God, even as a fairytale. It would be an inconsistent fairytale.

Also, the God of the Old Testament deals with the sins of men by drowning men out as he did in the Great Flood, (at totally absurd story about some guy who supposedly built a boat to save the entire animal kingdom on planet Earth from a global flood). The Great Flood of the Old Testament is itself utterly absurd. What makes far more sense is that there was a local flood somewhere that destroyed some ancient cities and these superstitious rumors grew out of that.

But even so, for the sake of the fairytale, assume this God really did drown men in a flood for being sinners. Why then would he suddenly have a complete change of personality to later offer his only begotten son up as a sacrificial lamb to pay for this sins of mankind and "save" them from his wrath?

None of this makes any sense at all Charles.

You have Jesus totally refuting the immoral directives of this God and replacing them with things far more in line with what people like Buddha had taught 500 years before Jesus was ever born.

You have this Old Testament God himself needing to undergo a extreme personality change from previously wanting to kill sinners because of his wrath, to now wanting to save people from his wrath.

There is nothing consistent or meaningful in these ancient superstitions Charles. And I'm just touching on some of the more obvious ones. There are literally thousands of absurdities and self-contradictions in these Biblical fables.

So your charge that if someone reject these fables it can only because they weren't willing to diligently and sincerely study them is FALSE. It's a FALSE charge Charles.

And, yes, when you make this charge to someone who has just told you that they reject the Bible because it is indeed utterly absurd, then for you to make this FALSE charge to them, you are indeed making it personal because they just told you that they have rejected the Bible as having no merit whatsoever. Yet you are proclaiming that they then must not have been willing to study it sincerely or diligently which is blatantly FALSE.

So you are making FALSE charges against everyone and anyone who has rejected the Biblical picture of God.

This would also include all Jews and Muslims since they reject the New Testament claims that Jesus was the only begotten son of God or that he was the sacrificial lamb of God sent to pay for the sins of making.

So your charge must also apply to all of those folks.

Furthermore, even if we look at Christianity alone we see gross disagreement between the Christianity. The Protestants have protested against the Catholic Church which is supposed to be the "Body of Christ". They have rebelled against the Pope who is supposedly ordained by God to preserve his word correctly. And Protestants even disagree with each other.

Protestants have extremely different views on what these ancient superstitious rumors supposedly mean. Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is nothing consistent or meaningful in them. For if there were, everyone who understood them would all be in agreement with each other on what they have to say. Since no two people on the face of the planet Earth can agree on everything these fables have to say, then it's crystal clear that they are totally ambiguous.

Your claim that if someone doesn't believe in the Bible it can "only be" because they haven't truly studied it is simple FALSE.

It's as FALSE as a claim can be Charles.

There is no credibility to your claim, and there is no credibility to the Bible.

It's just a bunch of superstitious rumors that no two people can even agree on what it has to say. We see this even within denominations. Even Pastors of the same denominations don't agree on every biblical issue. Bishops disagree with each other. Even Popes have had different views on what the Bible should mean, and according to Catholicism they are supposed to be divinely guided by the Biblical God himself.

If anything, we actually have rock solid PROOF that the Bible is necessarily a FALSE mythology.

In fact, I take just the opposite stance from you. You claim that if someone doesn't believe in the Bible it can only be because they haven't studied it diligently enough. I claim that if people are still believing in the Bible today it can only be because they aren't willing to look at it objectively without a preconceived notion that it "Has to be the word of God".

When you take this latter view you end up saying things like, "Well, I'm sure God had his reasons for these things that appear to be absurd to us".

But all that does is sweep all the fallacies and absurdities under the carpet in the pretense that they could potentially be explained away if you only had access to more information which isn't in these fables.

That's not "Studying the Bible", that's just "Making excuses for absurd fables".

And that's what most biblical apologists do. They sit around making endless excuses for the absurdities in the Bible.

That's not diligently studying the Bible. All that amounts to is diligently making excuse for it. That's what apologetics is.

I see no reason to make excuses for these fables. If they are absurd and self-inconsistent (which they clearly are) then let's just discard them like we discarded Greek mythology and move on to better things.

Sitting around making excuses for the absurdity of the Biblical fables, and then accusing everyone who refuses to do that as being unwilling to "diligently study the Bible" is a very lame charge that simply doesn't hold water.

[charles_hamm]

Before I address any of your points, I would like to clear something up. I was not implying "you" as in you Cubey. I was using "you" in a general sense to men anyone. I should have used "a person" instead to avoid any confusion. I will attempt to avoid this kind of confusion in the future. I will address your points in my next response to this; I just wanted to make sure you knew I was not refereing to you personally in my statement there.

But you are are making personal insinuations Charles, whether you realize it or not.

Your very position demands it.

You are proclaiming that if someone doesn't believe in the biblical God it can "only be" because they weren't willing to study it diligently enough. And so therefore you are accusing everyone who doesn't believe in the Bible as being a person who hasn't sincerely considered the Bible enough to study it diligently. That is a personal accusation aimed at everyone who has rejected the Bible as being utterly absurd.

History has already demonstrated to us the fallacy of your claim.

The Jews do not believe that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of Abraham.

Are you claiming then that the Jews are not willing to study the New Testament deeply enough to understand why Jesus is the son of God? That's baloney. I'm sure that the Jewish Rabbis have considered the New Testament in depth and have rejected it for solid reasons. In fact, I agree with them that the New Testament is totally incompatible with the Old Testament. Even the New Testament itself has Jesus rejecting the immoral teaching of the Old Testament God and replacing them with higher moral values.

The Old Testament had God directing people to judge each other and stone sinners and heathens to death. Jesus rejected the judging of others and taught people not to judge others and not to cast the first stone. The complete opposite of what had been attributed to the God of Abraham.

The Old Testament God condoned the seeking of revenge and taught people to seek an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

What did Jesus have to say about this?

Mathew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

That's blaspheme. Jesus was flatly renouncing the "Word of God" from the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jewish heathen inciting apostasy against the Jewish God of Abraham. There is no way that Jesus could have been the son of that God, even as a fairytale. It would be an inconsistent fairytale.

Also, the God of the Old Testament deals with the sins of men by drowning men out as he did in the Great Flood, (at totally absurd story about some guy who supposedly built a boat to save the entire animal kingdom on planet Earth from a global flood). The Great Flood of the Old Testament is itself utterly absurd. What makes far more sense is that there was a local flood somewhere that destroyed some ancient cities and these superstitious rumors grew out of that.

But even so, for the sake of the fairytale, assume this God really did drown men in a flood for being sinners. Why then would he suddenly have a complete change of personality to later offer his only begotten son up as a sacrificial lamb to pay for this sins of mankind and "save" them from his wrath?

None of this makes any sense at all Charles.

You have Jesus totally refuting the immoral directives of this God and replacing them with things far more in line with what people like Buddha had taught 500 years before Jesus was ever born.

You have this Old Testament God himself needing to undergo a extreme personality change from previously wanting to kill sinners because of his wrath, to now wanting to save people from his wrath.

There is nothing consistent or meaningful in these ancient superstitions Charles. And I'm just touching on some of the more obvious ones. There are literally thousands of absurdities and self-contradictions in these Biblical fables.

So your charge that if someone reject these fables it can only because they weren't willing to diligently and sincerely study them is FALSE. It's a FALSE charge Charles.

And, yes, when you make this charge to someone who has just told you that they reject the Bible because it is indeed utterly absurd, then for you to make this FALSE charge to them, you are indeed making it personal because they just told you that they have rejected the Bible as having no merit whatsoever. Yet you are proclaiming that they then must not have been willing to study it sincerely or diligently which is blatantly FALSE.

So you are making FALSE charges against everyone and anyone who has rejected the Biblical picture of God.

This would also include all Jews and Muslims since they reject the New Testament claims that Jesus was the only begotten son of God or that he was the sacrificial lamb of God sent to pay for the sins of making.

So your charge must also apply to all of those folks.

Furthermore, even if we look at Christianity alone we see gross disagreement between the Christianity. The Protestants have protested against the Catholic Church which is supposed to be the "Body of Christ". They have rebelled against the Pope who is supposedly ordained by God to preserve his word correctly. And Protestants even disagree with each other.

Protestants have extremely different views on what these ancient superstitious rumors supposedly mean. Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is nothing consistent or meaningful in them. For if there were, everyone who understood them would all be in agreement with each other on what they have to say. Since no two people on the face of the planet Earth can agree on everything these fables have to say, then it's crystal clear that they are totally ambiguous.

Your claim that if someone doesn't believe in the Bible it can "only be" because they haven't truly studied it is simple FALSE.

It's as FALSE as a claim can be Charles.

There is no credibility to your claim, and there is no credibility to the Bible.

It's just a bunch of superstitious rumors that no two people can even agree on what it has to say. We see this even within denominations. Even Pastors of the same denominations don't agree on every biblical issue. Bishops disagree with each other. Even Popes have had different views on what the Bible should mean, and according to Catholicism they are supposed to be divinely guided by the Biblical God himself.

If anything, we actually have rock solid PROOF that the Bible is necessarily a FALSE mythology.

In fact, I take just the opposite stance from you. You claim that if someone doesn't believe in the Bible it can only be because they haven't studied it diligently enough. I claim that if people are still believing in the Bible today it can only be because they aren't willing to look at it objectively without a preconceived notion that it "Has to be the word of God".

When you take this latter view you end up saying things like, "Well, I'm sure God had his reasons for these things that appear to be absurd to us".

But all that does is sweep all the fallacies and absurdities under the carpet in the pretense that they could potentially be explained away if you only had access to more information which isn't in these fables.

That's not "Studying the Bible", that's just "Making excuses for absurd fables".

And that's what most biblical apologists do. They sit around making endless excuses for the absurdities in the Bible.

That's not diligently studying the Bible. All that amounts to is diligently making excuse for it. That's what apologetics is.

I see no reason to make excuses for these fables. If they are absurd and self-inconsistent (which they clearly are) then let's just discard them like we discarded Greek mythology and move on to better things.

Sitting around making excuses for the absurdity of the Biblical fables, and then accusing everyone who refuses to do that as being unwilling to "diligently study the Bible" is a very lame charge that simply doesn't hold water.

Rather than go through and dispute you point by point I am just going to cover your entire post.

Divine Insight, you are one of the last people, in my opinion who should be leveling any form of accusations against anyone. This post insinuates that Christians are not smart enough to stop believing what you call a fable. You have also insinuated that Christians are not objective, not credible with there statements about the Bible and that anything they point out to show that the Bible is not "absurd" as you would put is a lame charge. You also accuse anyone who still holds that the Bible is true of not diligently studying the Bible and of making excuses for it. You also, in my opinion, only address part of my post to attempt to make it look like that was all I said when in reality there were more points in it. That is falsely representing someone's statements and position. See all the personal insinuations that I believe you have made Divine Insight? I understand that the nature of your view on Christianity demands that you make statements such as this. What I believe you have tried to do, in my opinion and my opinion only, is effectively eliminate any argument the Bible is comprehensible through the use of a simple analogy by calling that argument a personal attack.

One question to ask; If a person has done all of those things and that person still does not believe, how do any the examples I listed in my analogy apply to them?

[Divine Insight]

See all the personal insinuations that I believe you have made Divine Insight?

But there is a huge difference:

My accusations against the people who believe in the Bible doesn't imply that they are at odds with any God.

Your accusations that people aren't giving the Bible a sincere and genuine consideration is a direct implication that they are basically rejecting a "God" or somehow failing that "God".

So therein lies the difference.

The bottom line for me is that even if the Bible were from some "God", if that God himself failed to convince me via the Bible, then where do you get off suggesting this is anyone's fault other than the God himself?

Also, if you think that you could convince someone that the Bible is the word of God when God himself failed to convince them, then what does this say about your God? He would have basically failed to get his message across to people where you somehow succeeded?

Evangelism itself is nothing other than an act of proclaiming that you believe you can do a better job of communicating with people than your God.

So your accusation toward people amounts to "accusing" them of rejecting a God. Whereas my accusation toward those who believe in the Bible does not carry with it such an utterly absurd and offensive charge.

And you also seem to be totally ignoring the points I've made about how utterly confused and in disagreement the so-called "Believers of the Bible" actually are.

Your charge must also apply to all Jews, all Muslims, and in the end it must also apply to every Christian with whom you personally disagree with in matters of interpreting the Bible.

So where does your "charge" against people ultimately end? Only with so-called "Christians" who happen to agree with your personal interpretations of the Bible?

[charles_hamm]

See all the personal insinuations that I believe you have made Divine Insight?

But there is a huge difference:

My accusations against the people who believe in the Bible doesn't imply that they are at odds with any God.

Your accusations that people aren't giving the Bible a sincere and genuine consideration is a direct implication that they are basically rejecting a "God" or somehow failing that "God".

So therein lies the difference.

The bottom line for me is that even if the Bible were from some "God", if that God himself failed to convince me via the Bible, then where do you get off suggesting this is anyone's fault other than the God himself?

Also, if you think that you could convince someone that the Bible is the word of God when God himself failed to convince them, then what does this say about your God? He would have basically failed to get his message across to people where you somehow succeeded?

Evangelism itself is nothing other than an act of proclaiming that you believe you can do a better job of communicating with people than your God.

So your accusation toward people amounts to "accusing" them of rejecting a God. Whereas my accusation toward those who believe in the Bible does not carry with it such an utterly absurd and offensive charge.

And you also seem to be totally ignoring the points I've made about how utterly confused and in disagreement the so-called "Believers of the Bible" actually are.

Your charge must also apply to all Jews, all Muslims, and in the end it must also apply to every Christian with whom you personally disagree with in matters of interpreting the Bible.

So where does your "charge" against people ultimately end? Only with so-called "Christians" who happen to agree with your personal interpretations of the Bible?

I could ask the same of you. Where does your "charge" against people end? I'm afraid that in my opinion you are justifying your insinuations while condeming mine and that does not fly. The fact that your insinuations don't involve anyone rejecting or failing a God is not justification for making them. That is not free reign to do as you please and make the insinuations. I must ask since you have said I made "such an utterly absurd and offensive charge" are you saying that you accept the Christian God? You keep using the word 'a' in front of God and I do not so I am obviously talking about one God, the Christian God. I have never accused or implied anybody has rejected any "God" since I am only speaking about the Christian God.

If you have been offended like Divine Insight seems to have been by my analogy then I would like to present this question to any person who would like to answer:
If you feel that you do not "reject" the Christian God or for that matter the very notion that there is a Christian God, then are are you saying you accept the Christian God or the notion of the Christian God since acceptance is the opposite of rejection?

[cubey]

So because God gave you all need to believe and you refused He’s at fault.

No,what he gave was unconvincing, one would think he could do better job considering who he claims to be.
The statements made in the bible are false, lies. like this one its not even true even if a true believer asks.
John chapter 14:12:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
This statement comes from the one who claims to be god so therefore when he says 'Whatever you ask in my name i will do it' that is the will of god.
I guarantee you this there will be a lot of things he won't do.
And if your going bring up some other scripture that says what you are asking for something that is not the will of god then you have demonstrated this scripture is a lie, and that the word of god is in contradiction.
also if your going say that this scripture was meant for a specific group like eleven he was talking to you are wrong because it says
'he who believes in me will also do the works that I do'

charles_hamm
If you took, say calculus and you refused to read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors fault for your lack of understanding?

You bare false witness against me, my knowledge of the bible and use of scripture that i have used in this thread demonstrate
that i have 'read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors'as you put it
The problem is you don't agree with me and you think your infalliable in your knowlage.

charles_hamm
You've made a positive assertion here, therefore the burden of proof falls on you, not me.

I did not make the positive assertion here you did when you said your belief exist as something real, something that mankind would actually have to listen to.
So present your evidence for this alleged thing you say we have to listen to.

charles_hamm I believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

How did you come to this conclusion?

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
BTW we have eradicated some diseases. So once again, nice try..

With secular science, nice try

You got me except for the fact that you can’t even remotely show that ALL the scientist were atheist, nor can you show that the funding for the research that led to these cures did not come from Christians.

It doesn't matter who does the work it was done with capitalistic materialism and secular science and not prayer not the bible or your God.
Stop being a thief and give credit were credit is due.

charles_hamm
Actually no you are incorrect here. Revelation 14 is only seen as a preview of Babylon falling. If you will read Revelation 19 you’ll see the reality of Hell. Living torment in the presence of God is not for all eternity. Separation from God in a lake of fire is. My advice is to read the entire book before quoting it.

I doubt you have, maybe you should use the bible, instead of interpret it to make it say what you want it to say.

I wasn't talking about Revelation 14
I was talking about Revelation 20
The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
as stated in Psalm 139
those thrown into the lake fire well be in a living torment enforced by God and in presence of God for all of eternity.
Psalm 139
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

charles_hamm
John 10:18 explained
No one can take my life from me- No one can force me to die.

No man can make that claim so therefore he is not a man.

charles_hamm
I lay down my life voluntarily- I sacrifice my life.

The act of taking one's life for the benefit of others 'altruistic suicide' guilty as charged.

charles_hamm
I have the right to lay it down when I want- I have the right to sacrifice my life when I want to.

Now he's just stating he has the right to commit altruistic suicide its still suicide.

charles_hamm
The power to take it again- the power to take my life that is sacrificed voluntarily back.

A power no man has, therefore he is not a man, a god-man maybe, but definitely not a man.
When all men can make these claim then can God can judge us by the standard he uses to judge Christ by.

charles_hamm
Now that the explanation is done I’ll address your comments. You are right God is not dead nor did God the Son die on the cross. Jesus the human died on the cross.

Foolish nonsense now you try to explain the trinity by creating a second Jesus.
Its the holy trinity not the holy quadnity. :facepalm:
Jesus is was ether dead or alive not both.
So did he pay and not pay for your debt to god this explanation makes a mockery of his sacrifice.

charles_hamm
I believe that you probably got confused because I did not include nature after the divinity and for that I apologize. I’ll start with the misconception that Jesus is a creation of God. Jesus is not a creation of God.
He is one part of a triune God. He is to be exact, God the Son. If you read Revelation 1:8 Jesus calls himself the Alpha and Omega. Jesus became a man on Earth. He did not, however, give up His place as God the Son.

No i have had to tell a number of Christians that the bible says Jesus is God and therefore cannot be a creation of God.
You know the ones i'm talkin about, those Christians that aren't true Christians

charles_hamm
His humanity is shown in Luke 2:7,Galatians 4:4, Matthew 4:2, and John 4:6 and 19:28.

You may be able to show this, but it doesn't prove he was a man.
Because he claims to have power that no man has He can be in no way less than the sum total of what he is and this statement is what makes him not a man.

charles_hamm
There are more verses if you need to see them that show He was a man. Your statement about being a God walking around in a bag of flesh is way off target. If He were only God then He could not die or He would not be eternal.

So your are saying god is forced to be eternal that he has the neither the power or freewill to commit suicide?

charles_hamm
The lambs were soulless creatures so they were never a pure, perfect and holy sacrifice

Leviticus 22:
21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.

charles_hamm
A child who dies in its crib is only sinless because it’s covered by the blood of Jesus’ death from birth due to the lack of a choice

A child who dies in its crib is sinless because it has kept the law and it doesn't matter that the child has made no choice.
The blood of Jesus if for those who violate the law, not for those who keep it.

charles_hamm
It never says He promised any of the people who heard the disciples preach that if they went and preached to someone else the same signs would be shown.

Open your eyes its right here.
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe:
what you are trying to make it say is this;
15 He said to the disciples, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany you my disciples who believe: In my name you 'disciples' will drive out demons; you 'disciples' will speak in new tongues; 18 you 'disciples' will pick up snakes with your hands; and when you 'disciples' drink deadly poison, it will not hurt you 'disciples' at all; you 'disciples' will place your hands on sick people, and they will get well.
And it just doesn't say that.
If i say to you charles_hamm 'And these signs will accompany those who believe' i'm i talking to you, about you, or am i talking to you about someone else?

charles_hamm
All right so if you just want an either do a or b then the proper response is a, be a Christian and help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law. Under 1 Peter 2:11-23 it tells you to live Godly in a pagan society. Verse 2:12 says “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us.� If you had continued on 18-21 tells you it is commendable to bear the pain of unjust suffering in the eyes of God. Even verse 16, which you quoted, tells you not to use your freedom to cover-up for evil. Option b actually is mislabeled as being the good Christian.

You are not living Godly in Germany if you break German law, to help the Jews.
Because Romans 13 says you are to obey the government, all governments.
But you are saying that 1 Peter 2:11-23 says you can break the law.
You can't have it both ways.
Just another demonstration that the bible is contradictory.

Before I address any of your points, I would like to clear something up. I was not implying "you" as in you Cubey. I was using "you" in a general sense to men anyone. I should have used "a person" instead to avoid any confusion. I will attempt to avoid this kind of confusion in the future. I will address your points in my next response to this; I just wanted to make sure you knew I was not refereing to you personally in my statement there.

I don't take it personally and i still look forward to your response.
You do realize that what you did was equate something real with your imagined belief.
Now one could have a real exchange of dialog with a real professor, but its really not possible to have a real exchange of dialog in any way with someone else's imagined belief.
So now do you see how your analogy fails from my point of View.

[Divine Insight]

I could ask the same of you. Where does your "charge" against people end?

It will end when they quit charging me. My response to the accusations of the Bible are rebuttal to charges that have indeed been made against me by "Christiandom", and by various authors of the bible themselves. Such as Paul and the author of Psalms, etc.

In fact, ironically Jesus himself was never even portrayed as supporting this nonsense. On the contrary there are many verses attributed to Jesus that support just the opposite.

I'm afraid that in my opinion you are justifying your insinuations while condeming mine and that does not fly.

Sure it flies.

If you believe that you can say to me, "You have everything you need to believe in the Biblical God", and proclaim that you are not intending to insult me. Then how in the world can you claim that it would be insulting to you if I return the favor by telling you that, "You have everything you need to recognize that the biblical fables can't possibly be true".

We are at a dead stand-off at that point. We can either insist on continuing to insult each other OR we can chose to do the following:

You go ahead and believe in the Bible for yourself and quit beating me over the head with your rubber Jesus doll.

And I'll go ahead and recognize that the Bible doesn't have any more merit than Greek mythology.

Then we can both respect each other for having come to our own conclusions.

When you proclaim to me that I have everything I need to believe in your religion you are insinuating that, for whatever reason, you believe that I'm too stupid to understand it.

Well, if you're going to take that stance and stand by it tenaciously, then I'll take my stance that you have everything you need to see through the Biblical nonsense.

In other words, if you're going to use your religion to insult me, I'll return the favor.

This would have never even come up if you were arrogantly proclaiming that I have everything I need to believe in your religion in the first place. So you are the one who "Cast the first stone" so-to-speak.

I personally don't care if you believe in Zeus. But if you start beating me over the head with Zeus proclaiming that I have everything I need to believe in Zeus too, then you are the one who is starting trouble, not me.

Change Zeus to Yahweh or Jesus and you haven't change a thing.

The fact that your insinuations don't involve anyone rejecting or failing a God is not justification for making them. That is not free reign to do as you please and make the insinuations.

You're right. I agree. My justification for making them is because they are Righteous Rebuttal to your accusations which were cast FIRST.

If you're going to insinuate that I have everything I need to believe in your religion, then I have every right to offer my views that you have everything you need to see that they are nonsense.

That's my honest view. So there you go.

I must ask since you have said I made "such an utterly absurd and offensive charge" are you saying that you accept the Christian God? You keep using the word 'a' in front of God and I do not so I am obviously talking about one God, the Christian God. I have never accused or implied anybody has rejected any "God" since I am only speaking about the Christian God.

Well, perhaps this is the difference between you and I.

I view the term "God" to be referring to the actual entity that created this universe (if such an entity exists).

You, on the other hand are using the term only to refer to the "god" of Hebrew mythology. You need to remember that the Greeks also referred to Zeus as "God". Are you rejecting the God Zeus? Or do you simply realize that the Greek picture of God was wrong?

The fact that Chrisitanity acts like they have a patent on "God" is what make them so overbearingly arrogant.

I have no problem with "God" (i.e. the creator of the universe if such an entity exists). But I do have a problem with the arrogance of Christianity and their religious bigotry.,

In fact, I don't even have a problem with "Jesus" in much the same way as Mahatma Gandhi puts it:

"I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians".

If you have been offended like Divine Insight seems to have been by my analogy then I would like to present this question to any person who would like to answer:
If you feel that you do not "reject" the Christian God or for that matter the very notion that there is a Christian God, then are are you saying you accept the Christian God or the notion of the Christian God since acceptance is the opposite of rejection?

No, that's word-twisting on your part. It's also gross denial of the Christian arrogance to proclaim that only their God is the one true God and that all other pictures of God are false.

Do you "reject" Zeus? I certainly hope not, because if you do that would imply that you actually believe that Zeus is a "Real God". If you believe that Greek mythology is just man-made superstitions then you don't believe that there is a Zeus to "reject".

But yes, if we're going to get into "rejecting" fictitious mythological fallacies, then yes, I most certainly do reject the Biblical God. IMHO, even as a fictitious character he's disgusting. I wouldn't worship him. He's pathetic and totally unworthy of worship. And if the we add the Christian idea that Jesus was supposedly the "Sacrificial Lamb" of this God, that makes him even more pathetic and disgusting.

So, yes, as a mythological fictional character I most certainly would reject the God of Christianity. Why would I want to worship such an ignorant self-proclaimed "Jealous" God who apparently doesn't have the maturity of even an adolescent human. He supposedly can't even control his own angry and wrath.

If he were to exist he would be an absolute pathetic God, IMHO, totally unworthy of anyone's worship.

The only reason to "Worship" the Biblical God would be to avoid his immature uncontrollable wrath.

IMHO, that's an absolutely disgusting reason to worship any deity.

Now you may be thinking, "How can this guy say such horrible things about my religion?"

Well, the answer to that is quite simple. You are attempting to "push" your religion onto me by proclaiming that I have "Everything I Need" to believe in it.

In other words, you're trying to pull Paul's stunt of trying to proclaim that men are without excuse for not believing in his picture of God.

Well, Charles, if you're going to take that stance then why should I have any qualms at all about telling you just how utterly ugly and ignorant I think your religion is?

If you're going to use your religion as a battering ram to proclaim that there is something "wrong" with me for not believing in it by insinuating that I have everything I need to know that it's "true", then why should I hold back any stops when it comes to being quite frank with you about just how ugly and ignorant I think the religion is?

I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

IMHO, and so-called "God" who would be involved in having his son nailed to a pole as a symbol of his "LOVE" for mankind deserves to institutionalized in a mental hospital for Gods.

That's my honest assessment Charles.

If you find this offensive, that's just too bad. There is no way that I could ever imagine a truly divine all-wise God asking people to condone having his son nailed to a pole to pay for their sins.

Even if that actually needed to be done for some weird reason, it would still be highly ignorant.

The religion is basically saying that the only way I can receive this God's love is to first condone having his son beaten and nailed to a pole on my behalf.

What?

That's basically telling me that I must condone what I consider to be a highly immoral act on my behalf before this God will even consider loving me?

That, my friend, is the most utterly absurd thing I can imagine.

There has to be something wrong with the religion. And of course there clearly is, because there are countless other reasons to dismiss it as well.

So I have every reason to reject it.

Precisely the opposite of what you are attempting to claim.

[Untraveled Trail]

Hell is a creation of human beings, not God, and more properly, by people who desire to control the actions of others through fear, intimidation, and superstition. Through Persian Zoroastrianism during the late stages of the deportation and exile, the idea of afterlife punishment began to encounter the Jewish belief that life ends with the grave. The Greco-Roman world seems to have been influenced by the idea of rewards for a good life/punishment for a life lived sinfully and Christianity (and Judaism to a degree) absorbed some of the influence.

Gehenna, the word Jesus supposedly used in the Gospels that is translated "Hell" was the smoldering garbage dump where all the trash was thrown and burned on the edge of Jerusalem and the Kidron Valley that runs along the side of the city. The image is potent.