So I have seen a few objections to Yahweh, a.k.a the Christian God, a.k.a Jesus Christ, from atheists and skeptics in the short time that I've argued with them. Some of these are:

- Creation makes no sense since there is no answer to "who created God?"

- Yahweh is an immoral God because He commanded the extermination of the Amalekites among other things

- Yahweh is a weak God for not having wiped out Satan's opposition in all this time he has been in rebellion

- Yahweh is on a par with other gods, that is, if Yahweh is real, so must other gods be since they're all equally doubtful as to their existence and morality

- Christians are a moronic, repressive lot who threaten you with hell to make you join them

- the Bible is contradictory

- the Bible was written and compiled by men

- there is no physical or tangible proof that all that exists came into being by creation

- etc etc.

I am pretty sure that that list is not exhaustive, but I don't think that however long it gets it can get away from these three points of offence for the atheist/skeptic: Yahweh Himself, Christians and the Bible. Every issue raised against Yahweh ultimately relates to these three.

I'll take the last first. The Christian's claim is that the Bible is the Word of God and as such is completely true and exhaustive in its coverage of all matters relating to life. This means that the Christian believer that the commonly accepted volume of 66 (I believe it is, not counting the apocryphal and the gnostic gospels) writings were written and organised by men completely under the Hand of God to address without leave every issue relating to life and completely truthfully. There is, as far as the Christian is concerned, no mistake in the Bible and no omission either. It is not possible to fault the Bible. Every perceived discrepancy is just that: perceived. What good does that do for the atheist or skeptic who finds fault with it? Apparently nothing. But there is another claim that the Bible itself makes: it says that the natural mind is incapable of discerning (or seeing) the things of God.
The atheist/skeptic may say that this is just an excellent way to excuse the Bible's contradictions, but they would be wrong because as far as argument pursued under the rules of logic go, it is up to the Christian who is supposed to be able to see the meanings hidden from the atheist/skeptic to show that there are no contradictions. Here is where the problem lies: the Christian may successfully do so, but the atheist's/skeptic's unwillingness to accept Yahweh may blind them to the proof of consistency.

Next, I'll speak of the Christian. Ideas mean nothing, principles mean nothing, even God means nothing to the human being unless another human being he can relate to embodies them. This plays out over and over again in life, so much so that it would be absurd to try to prove it. Bearing this in mind, we now ask the question: WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?
That is a question whose answer is taken for granted by the unbeliever including the atheist and the skeptic. The Christian is not necessarily that guy that's in "church" (another completely misused word) every Sunday and who carries a Bible. The Christian may or may not attend a "church", he may not always be seen with a Bible, but he's always the one who reminds you of Jesus Christ. It is written in the Bible that the disciples were first called "Christians" in Antioch. And a little before that time, they had been characterised as having been with Jesus. However, a little analysis of the word: Christian = Christ + ian. I'm not going into origins of suffixes and all, but considering examples like Niger[b]ian[/b], Americ[b]an[/b], Ind[b]ian[/b], it makes sense to say that the suffix, "ian" says something like, "of", "belonging to" or "so like as to be of the same essence as". Therefore, a Christian would be a human being showing features that are exclusively Christ. Something about such a person, maybe small, maybe big, speaks eloquently of Jesus Christ. It is only such a person that can rightly be used to judge Yahweh, since their claim is that they embody Him.
It is therefore a travesty to judge Yahweh by badged representatives who bear no distinguishing mark belonging exclusively to Him.

Finally, I come to Yahweh Himself. So much is thrown at Him by the atheist/skeptic in hopes that He'll defend Himself somehow and make believers of them. It's a little funny considering that they swear they don't believe in His existence. In fact, their derision of His Book and accusation of His children are also intended to get a rise out of Him somehow, hardly ever to find out if He really exists or is worthy of worship. A true seeker of Yahweh will be found by Him, at least the Bible says so. But in this case, there is a doubt that the atheist/skeptic will find Him because they really already have and they don't like what they see...

...However, I will treat some of their issues with His Person with the seriousness accorded a sincere debater. But before I get to it, I find it quite necessary to make one statement: there has never been a sincere seeker of the truth who judges or examines a thing under study by standards inconsistent with the things nature. This means that the logical thing is to try an idea or claim by the claims itself makes. If, for instance, there were a theory that human beings can live and thrive on Mars (as there actually is), the logical approach has been to see if Mars can support life. How is that done? Either by putting a human being there or by testing its environment to see how it compares to Earth, the only planet we know that supports human life. That means that a basic assumption is made: Mars can support life. Then, experts throw at this assumption all the tests at their disposal to see if it holds. If it holds, it is accepted as true, if it gives, it is thrown out as false.
All that means is that it is counter-logical to prove God by first assuming He doesn't exist or is something other than He claims to be. Because doing that leads to all the wrong tests and from there wrong conclusions.
Now for those answers.

- Creation makes no sense because it cannot answer who created God. This answers itself. God, by definition, could not have been created. And it's only logical that man be incapable of reaching behind creation. The law of creation (believe me, there really is one) demands that that which is created be intellectually less capable than that which creates it. The simple fact that man still has not created human intelligence and is proving less and less capable of doing so should bear this out. It is absurd to throw the concept of God out simply because we can't define His origins.

- Yahweh is an immoral God because He commanded the extermination of the Amalelites among other things. I have found this argument established with the fact that Yahweh had given as one of His commandments, Thou shalt not kill. As it is said, is the lawgiver not greater than the law? Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.

- Yahweh is a weak God for not destroying Satan up till now. This argument stands on the assumption that Satan's continued existence and activity implies God's powerlessness against him. But such an assumption is illogical. It is a little like saying that my deliberate ignorance of a mosquito amounts to my inability to kill it. Perhaps I'm ignoring it because I've already made sure of its death. Such a scenario is what the Bible holds: that Satan is not currently in a war with God but is currently in defeat and is only awaiting the carrying out of his sentence. That he is still active does not at all negate this, rather does it show that there might (I use that word for the sake of argument) be depth in God's wisdom concerning Him.

- Yahweh is on a par with other gods. This reasoning makes no sense at all. How does the non-existence of one thing affect the existence of another entirely separate thing? That Allah is not real cannot affect Yahweh's reality, that Buddha fails as a god cannot make Yahweh a failure as well. These could only be true if there were association between them. But Yahweh is distinct from these "gods" and is in no way to be compared to them.

Please note that i am happy you opened up this thread as you promised....I am not an atheist and we will gently address all issues.

- Yahweh is an immoral God because He commanded the extermination of the Amalelites among other things. I have found this argument established with the fact that Yahweh had given as one of His commandments, Thou shalt not kill. As it is said, is the lawgiver not greater than the law? Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.

I am sorry sir but i disagree with you strongly....why will you a true 'source' of morality as many claim him too not uphold a standard he sets....Leadership by example comes to mind on this one....maybe God asked them to claim so they can fully claim the land or eliminate God's enemies but that dosent account for the fact that he should go back on his word...

- Yahweh is a weak God for not destroying Satan up till now. This argument stands on the assumption that Satan's continued existence and activity implies God's powerlessness against him. But such an assumption is illogical. It is a little like saying that my deliberate ignorance of a mosquito amounts to my inability to kill it. Perhaps I'm ignoring it because I've already made sure of its death. Such a scenario is what the Bible holds: that Satan is not currently in a war with God but is currently in defeat and is only awaiting the carrying out of his sentence. That he is still active does not at all negate this, rather does it show that there might (I use that word for the sake of argument) be depth in God's wisdom concerning Him.

Sir, this question has been answered in various ways by numerous people but if i may ask you sir....If you can see tomorrow and a strong enemy of yours is arising today to trouble you tomorrow...do you smite the enemy today or wait till tomorrow? Sometimes this scenario you just painted makes human existence look like a game show.

Yawn. So many failed arguments. Where do I start?



Failed argument number 1;
The bible is true/applicable to all aspects of life?
The bible is so immoral/contadictory that you cant even explain many things there to children. The old testament supports slavery (leveiticus 25;44 your slaves may come from the nations around you). The bible has laws against incest but Abraham married his step-sister. Adam is the parent (ribe clone parent) of Eve, yet the have children together


If the bible is applicable to all parts of our modern life, how does the bible relate to the internet? What if I download a video from youtube; is it stealing I am taking a copy of a video that has infite copies and life from a public domain. What about stem cell research? Can the bible legislate on that? No.


Failed argument number 2;
Yaweh is not the same non-entity as Zeus, Horus, Allah, Ogun or Thor.

All religions have the exact same proof for their God; None. Dont you think that if there was a proof for God we would have found it by now. Over 2000 years there have been believers, yet no evidence.

Ihedinobi:
- Yahweh is an immoral God because He commanded the extermination of the Amalelites among other things. I have found this argument established with the fact that Yahweh had given as one of His commandments, Thou shalt not kill. As it is said, is the lawgiver not greater than the law? Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.

Well, yeah, so many failed arguments... Not addressed to me, but I'll add to what has already been said about this point. I really do wish people did not have turn to an imaginery? friend on issues of morality, especially when it's so egregious. Sooo, he's (why he in the first place, and he supposedly looks like a bearded Italian, in the sky, but that's another topic) the absolute law, yes? And he's also above it (among many other things), correct? Ok, so what happens when he says burn the infidels/apostates? Or when he declares that women are more or less half as valuable as men, and should behave like sheep and accept when the husband gives them a good beating to keep them in line (I support that ). Do you think it's a good idea to go about killing people who work on sabbath?

Insidious effects like this are the reason atheists in recent times have been relatively vocal about how horrible religion can be (especially after 9/11). What might have been tolerated by them before has now reached the point where many have snapped. I mean really, in today's world we still need this? You might be thinking overreacting but as another insidious effect, I've met (extremely kind when not being zombies) women who won't let their children play with the neighbors kids because said neighbors believe in a different god. You think that's no big deal? Think again, but clearly, on how things like these profoundly affect society. If the average person can't see this then our species probably will die out sooner rather than later.. /rant

mkmyers45:
Please note that i am happy you opened up this thread as you promised....I am not an atheist and we will gently address all issues.

What are you exactly?

Ihedinobi:
I'll take the last first. The Christian's claim is that the Bible is the Word of God and as such is completely true and exhaustive in its coverage of all matters relating to life. This means that the Christian believer that the commonly accepted volume of 66 (I believe it is, not counting the apocryphal and the gnostic gospels) writings were written and organised by men completely under the Hand of God to address without leave every issue relating to life and completely truthfully. There is, as far as the Christian is concerned, no mistake in the Bible and no omission either. It is not possible to fault the Bible. Every perceived discrepancy is just that: perceived. What good does that do for the atheist or skeptic who finds fault with it? Apparently nothing. But there is another claim that the Bible itself makes: it says that the natural mind is incapable of discerning (or seeing) the things of God.
The atheist/skeptic may say that this is just an excellent way to excuse the Bible's contradictions, but they would be wrong because as far as argument pursued under the rules of logic go, it is up to the Christian who is supposed to be able to see the meanings hidden from the atheist/skeptic to show that there are no contradictions. Here is where the problem lies: the Christian may successfully do so, but the atheist's/skeptic's unwillingness to accept Yahweh may blind them to the proof of consistency.

first,i commend your overall write-up.
you claim that atheists see contradictions that dont exist.however you not attempted to highlight these cited "contradictions" and attempt to give a logical explanation for why they correlate.
i must let you know that these "contradictions" arent a figment of imagination.bible scholars have tried every possible way of twisting those words around to make them correlate but have so far failed.for example,some "contradictions" are so straightforward am suprised christians dogmatically defend them.a situation where matthew claims jesus was born around 6BC and luke claims he was born around 6AD(a whole difference of 12years) is just a plain contradiction that is clearly there.its plain language and i wonder why xtians keep attempting to spin it.even there account after his birth contradict.matthew claims they fled to egypt,luke says they went back to nazareth.these is plain language.these 2 accounts are contradictory.even "the great apostle" paul contradicts himself in accounts of his conversion and when his "ministry" began.this discrepancies were addressed in another thread and i wont delve deeper.
now here's the thing,if these accounts differ,the infallibility of the bible is put to question.
christians have never been able to provide logical explanation for these discrepancies.they keep making very inane conjectures and creating possible scenarios.one bible scholar even went to the extent of claiming quirinius was governor of syria twice(a claim without any evidence)all in a bid to correlate mathew and luke's account.
now answer this question,if there's no disease,would you need drugs?if there were no discrepancies,will bible scholars be making up all manners of scenarios?

ihedinobi: Next, I'll speak of the Christian. Ideas mean nothing, principles mean nothing, even God means nothing to the human being unless another human being he can relate to embodies them. This plays out over and over again in life, so much so that it would be absurd to try to prove it. Bearing this in mind, we now ask the question: WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?
That is a question whose answer is taken for granted by the unbeliever including the atheist and the skeptic. The Christian is not necessarily that guy that's in "church" (another completely misused word) every Sunday and who carries a Bible. The Christian may or may not attend a "church", he may not always be seen with a Bible, but he's always the one who reminds you of Jesus Christ. It is written in the Bible that the disciples were first called "Christians" in Antioch. And a little before that time, they had been characterised as having been with Jesus. However, a little analysis of the word: Christian = Christ + ian. I'm not going into origins of suffixes and all, but considering examples like Niger[b]ian[/b], Americ[b]an[/b], Ind[b]ian[/b], it makes sense to say that the suffix, "ian" says something like, "of", "belonging to" or "so like as to be of the same essence as". Therefore, a Christian would be a human being showing features that are exclusively Christ. Something about such a person, maybe small, maybe big, speaks eloquently of Jesus Christ. It is only such a person that can rightly be used to judge Yahweh, since their claim is that they embody Him.
It is therefore a travesty to judge Yahweh by badged representatives who bear no distinguishing mark belonging exclusively to Him.

a nigerian is a nigerian whether he is a senator or a fraudster.nigeria will never deny the citizenship of a nigerian simply because they committed a crime or dont conform to societal value or standard.if by your analogy,the kingdom of christ denies its relationship with people who have sworn allegiance to its anthem(the lord's prayer),its constituition(bible) and life president(jesus) because of some failure,then that negates the purpose for which jesus supposedly came to the world which is to take sinners back to the father

ihedinobi: Finally, I come to Yahweh Himself. So much is thrown at Him by the atheist/skeptic in hopes that He'll defend Himself somehow and make believers of them. It's a little funny considering that they swear they don't believe in His existence. In fact, their derision of His Book and accusation of His children are also intended to get a rise out of Him somehow, hardly ever to find out if He really exists or is worthy of worship. A true seeker of Yahweh will be found by Him, at least the Bible says so. But in this case, there is a doubt that the atheist/skeptic will find Him because they really already have and they don't like what they see...

lets assume yahweh created the universe.lets assume i am in this world because of him.now lets assume the windows 7 operating system is a universe with its creator(god) been microsoft.does it make sense that microsoft will create the windows 7 without inputing certain codes that identifies its creator.is it also possible that microsoft will create the operating system and then create a villain(devil) that can crash it?probably.is it possible that microsoft will create a villain it wont be able to destroy?NO.thats what antiviruses are for.i am not an expert in IT stuff and my analogy might be laymanish but i hope you get the idea

Ihedinobi: ...However, I will treat some of their issues with His Person with the seriousness accorded a sincere debater. But before I get to it, I find it quite necessary to make one statement: there has never been a sincere seeker of the truth who judges or examines a thing under study by standards inconsistent with the things nature. This means that the logical thing is to try an idea or claim by the claims itself makes. If, for instance, there were a theory that human beings can live and thrive on Mars (as there actually is), the logical approach has been to see if Mars can support life. How is that done? Either by putting a human being there or by testing its environment to see how it compares to Earth, the only planet we know that supports human life. That means that a basic assumption is made: Mars can support life. Then, experts throw at this assumption all the tests at their disposal to see if it holds. If it holds, it is accepted as true, if it gives, it is thrown out as false.
All that means is that it is counter-logical to prove God by first assuming He doesn't exist or is something other than He claims to be. Because doing that leads to all the wrong tests and from there wrong conclusions.
Now for those answers.

- Creation makes no sense because it cannot answer who created God. This answers itself. God, by definition, could not have been created. And it's only logical that man be incapable of reaching behind creation. The law of creation (believe me, there really is one) demands that that which is created be intellectually less capable than that which creates it. The simple fact that man still has not created human intelligence and is proving less and less capable of doing so should bear this out. It is absurd to throw the concept of God out simply because we can't define His origins.

man created the computer,is man more intelligent than the computer?man created the internet,as at last time i checked,man hadnt been able to match that creation in any way.thus your analogy is untenable

ihedinobi: - Yahweh is an immoral God because He commanded the extermination of the Amalelites among other things. I have found this argument established with the fact that Yahweh had given as one of His commandments, Thou shalt not kill. As it is said, is the lawgiver not greater than the law? Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.

i though god said he honours his words more than his name.

ihedinobi: - Yahweh is a weak God for not destroying Satan up till now. This argument stands on the assumption that Satan's continued existence and activity implies God's powerlessness against him. But such an assumption is illogical. It is a little like saying that my deliberate ignorance of a mosquito amounts to my inability to kill it. Perhaps I'm ignoring it because I've already made sure of its death. Such a scenario is what the Bible holds: that Satan is not currently in a war with God but is currently in defeat and is only awaiting the carrying out of his sentence. That he is still active does not at all negate this, rather does it show that there might (I use that word for the sake of argument) be depth in God's wisdom concerning Him.

and in the process of waiting for judgement he is taking God's children who he loves so much,away from god

ihedinobi: - Yahweh is on a par with other gods. This reasoning makes no sense at all. How does the non-existence of one thing affect the existence of another entirely separate thing? That Allah is not real cannot affect Yahweh's reality, that Buddha fails as a god cannot make Yahweh a failure as well. These could only be true if there were association between them. But Yahweh is distinct from these "gods" and is in no way to be compared to them.

my friend,yahweh,allah,buddha,vishnu,zain,peter pan,spiderman,green goblin,sleeping beauty,pinocchio,zeus,mithra,astarte,baal,dagon,etc all fall within the same category.as for the "divine" beings,they are worshipped as the "only" way.allah claims he is god and nothing disproves this,yahweh makes same claim and nothing disproves it,vishnu,mithra,zeus claim same and nothing disproves it.its therefore unjustified for one to claim superiority over the other without providing "divine" evidence

Hmm, interesting thread, watching from the sidelines for now.

Mr_Anony: Hmm, interesting thread, watching from the sidelines for now.

You dare comment? Your buddy is being destroyed

MacDaddy01:


You dare comment? Your buddy is being destroyed

No he isn't. From where I am standing, his argument still holds strong

Mr_Anony:
No he isn't. From where I am standing, his argument still holds strong

really? After, he has been debunked left and right?

MacDaddy01:
really? After, he has been debunked left and right?

Lol, you are so funny, I the funny thing is if I called you out on your so called "debunking", you'll immediately start jumping all over the place.

The cat sure got among the pigeons lol

Mr_Anony:
No he isn't. From where I am standing, his argument still holds strong

i wouldnt expect otherwise from you

Delafruita:
i wouldnt expect otherwise from you

Glad I didn't disappoint you.

Sorry guys, couldn't help the delay Well, I'm here now and taking mkmyers45 first

mkmyers45:
Please note that i am happy you opened up this thread as you promised....I am not an atheist and we will gently address all issues.

I'm ignoring the bolded part for now. It may yet prove relevant.

mkmyers45: I am sorry sir but i disagree with you strongly....why will you a true 'source' of morality as many claim him too not uphold a standard he sets....Leadership by example comes to mind on this one....maybe God asked them to claim so they can fully claim the land or eliminate God's enemies but that dosent account for the fact that he should go back on his word...

First bolded. Why does "leadership by example" come to your mind?
Second bolded. How does God go back on His Word in this regard?

mkmyers45: Sir, this question has been answered in various ways by numerous people but if i may ask you sir....If you can see tomorrow and a strong enemy of yours is arising today to trouble you tomorrow...do you smite the enemy today or wait till tomorrow? Sometimes this scenario you just painted makes human existence look like a game show.

The Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world (Pardon the fact that I can't give you the reference for this Scripture right now, I'm away from my Bible at present). That is, God established His Victory before there was even a battle. Furthermore, "the angels that kept not their first estate...hath he reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day" as Jude 6 says.
That things are well planned and accounted for without violating the will of any of His intelligent creation is not to say that human existence is a game show. It only says that the God Who made humans is far more intelligent than some of us might like

MacDaddy01: Yawn. So many failed arguments. Where do I start?



Failed argument number 1;
The bible is true/applicable to all aspects of life?
The bible is so immoral/contadictory that you cant even explain many things there to children. The old testament supports slavery (leveiticus 25;44 your slaves may come from the nations around you). The bible has laws against incest but Abraham married his step-sister. Adam is the parent (ribe clone parent) of Eve, yet the have children together


If the bible is applicable to all parts of our modern life, how does the bible relate to the internet? What if I download a video from youtube; is it stealing I am taking a copy of a video that has infite copies and life from a public domain. What about stem cell research? Can the bible legislate on that? No.

lol... Sorry I laughed, not to insult your intelligence or anything, it's just that you've run right back of my argument. My argument is that the Bible's position is that you, not having the Spirit of God, cannot see the meanings of the Bible and therefore are in no position to fault it. Where you question it, you must be willing to accept the answer of a qualified interpreter (that is, a Christian) as at least worth examining. And this is not illogical. Court cases that involve specialist fields exemplify this, they are not examined without the advice of qualified persons in such fields.[/quote]

MacDaddy01: Failed argument number 2;
Yaweh is not the same non-entity as Zeus, Horus, Allah, Ogun or Thor.

All religions have the exact same proof for their God; None. Dont you think that if there was a proof for God we would have found it by now. Over 2000 years there have been believers, yet no evidence.

I don't see your point here. The fact that there is no proof for Allah, for instance, has nothing whatever to do with Yahweh. If you will reject Yahweh, you must do so on Yahweh's own demerits, not Allah's.

Two "failed" arguments...and that's only a start in on the many? I'm a little disappointed. I quite expected to be overwhelmed.

Ihedinobi: The Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world (Pardon the fact that I can't give you the reference for this Scripture right now, I'm away from my Bible at present)

Then, the virgin Mary had a little Lamb.

Mary had a little lamb,
whose fleece was white as snow.

And everywhere that Mary went,
the lamb was sure to go.

It followed her to school one day
which was against the rules.

It made the children laugh and play,
to see a lamb at school.

And so the teacher turned it out,
but still it lingered near,

And waited patiently about,
till Mary did appear.

"Why does the lamb love Mary so?"
the eager children cry.

"Why, Mary loves the lamb, I know."
the teacher did reply.

Why, Mary loves the Lamb, because.
Lamb saves the world

What do we call Mary's Lamb
Lamb is Jesus Christ.

wiegraf:

Well, yeah, so many failed arguments... Not addressed to me, but I'll add to what has already been said about this point. I really do wish people did not have turn to an imaginery? friend on issues of morality, especially when it's so egregious. Sooo, he's (why he in the first place, and he supposedly looks like a bearded Italian, in the sky, but that's another topic) the absolute law, yes? And he's also above it (among many other things), correct? Ok, so what happens when he says burn the infidels/apostates? Or when he declares that women are more or less half as valuable as men, and should behave like sheep and accept when the husband gives them a good beating to keep them in line (I support that ). Do you think it's a good idea to go about killing people who work on sabbath?

Insidious effects like this are the reason atheists in recent times have been relatively vocal about how horrible religion can be (especially after 9/11). What might have been tolerated by them before has now reached the point where many have snapped. I mean really, in today's world we still need this? You might be thinking overreacting but as another insidious effect, I've met (extremely kind when not being zombies) women who won't let their children play with the neighbors kids because said neighbors believe in a different god. You think that's no big deal? Think again, but clearly, on how things like these profoundly affect society. If the average person can't see this then our species probably will die out sooner rather than later.. /rant

If you have drawn all of this from the Bible (as I think that you have), you still come under my answer: unless you have the Spirit of the God of the Bible inside you, you can never make sense of the Bible.
I'll take the "burn the infidels/apostates" (lol) thing first. Why does a God Who in the Old Testament is all (apparently) for destroying unbelieving nations go dying for the same nations in the New Testament? Another contradiction huh, since He is said to be unchanging, right? The Christian tells you there is no contradiction. You just don't have what it takes to see the reconciliation of the two actions. I think that in the course of the discussion, this particular example (given the average atheist's/skeptic's addiction to it) will be explained.

Ihedinobi:

lol... Sorry I laughed, not to insult your intelligence or anything, it's just that you've run right back of my argument. My argument is that the Bible's position is that you, not having the Spirit of God, cannot see the meanings of the Bible and therefore are in no position to fault it. Where you question it, you must be willing to accept the answer of a qualified interpreter (that is, a Christian) as at least worth examining. And this is not illogical. Court cases that involve specialist fields exemplify this, they are not examined without the advice of qualified persons in such fields.

Failed argument number 2;
Yaweh is not the same non-entity as Zeus, Horus, Allah, Ogun or Thor.

All religions have the exact same proof for their God; None. Dont you think that if there was a proof for God we would have found it by now. Over 2000 years there have been believers, yet no evidence.


I don't see your point here. The fact that there is no proof for Allah, for instance, has nothing whatever to do with Yahweh. If you will reject Yahweh, you must do so on Yahweh's own demerits, not Allah's.

Two "failed" arguments...and that's only a start in on the many? I'm a little disappointed. I quite expected to be overwhelmed.

Look at this joker! You have no rebuttal to my first point other than; "you dont have the spirit to interpret the bible."


As for my second point, it still stands. There exists the same proof for Allah and Yaweh- both from illogical and cavemen-made holy books

Delafruita:
first,i commend your overall write-up.
you claim that atheists see contradictions that dont exist.however you not attempted to highlight these cited "contradictions" and attempt to give a logical explanation for why they correlate.
i must let you know that these "contradictions" arent a figment of imagination.bible scholars have tried every possible way of twisting those words around to make them correlate but have so far failed.for example,some "contradictions" are so straightforward am suprised christians dogmatically defend them.a situation where matthew claims jesus was born around 6BC and luke claims he was born around 6AD(a whole difference of 12years) is just a plain contradiction that is clearly there.its plain language and i wonder why xtians keep attempting to spin it.even there account after his birth contradict.matthew claims they fled to egypt,luke says they went back to nazareth.these is plain language.these 2 accounts are contradictory.even "the great apostle" paul contradicts himself in accounts of his conversion and when his "ministry" began.this discrepancies were addressed in another thread and i wont delve deeper.
now here's the thing,if these accounts differ,the infallibility of the bible is put to question.
christians have never been able to provide logical explanation for these discrepancies.they keep making very inane conjectures and creating possible scenarios.one bible scholar even went to the extent of claiming quirinius was governor of syria twice(a claim without any evidence)all in a bid to correlate mathew and luke's account.
now answer this question,if there's no disease,would you need drugs?if there were no discrepancies,will bible scholars be making up all manners of scenarios?

I think you're failing to see my argument here. This thread was not set up to straighten out "contradictions" and "discrepancies" in the Bible. The only manner in which it touches these is in saying that atheists and skeptics discount the Bible's credibility and infallibility based on them. My position is that the atheist/skeptic or any unbeliever for that matter is not the right person to judge/interpret the Bible for pure lack of ability and adequate qualification. There is no true Christian who perceives contradiction in the Bible because things that appear contradictory in it only appear so. It's like trying to describe the uncertainty principle of the electron. You're told that an electron is both still and in motion at once. You say, "that's impossible!" The physicist attempts to explain the concept to you and simply because you lack the training that enables him to understand, you find it incomprehensible. How sensible is it to say the failure lies with him? And that's a mild example. The difference between the Christian and the unbeliever is a much wilder gulf than that between that big-brained nuclear physicist and you.

Delafruita:
a nigerian is a nigerian whether he is a senator or a fraudster.nigeria will never deny the citizenship of a nigerian simply because they committed a crime or dont conform to societal value or standard.if by your analogy,the kingdom of christ denies its relationship with people who have sworn allegiance to its anthem(the lord's prayer),its constituition(bible) and life president(jesus) because of some failure,then that negates the purpose for which jesus supposedly came to the world which is to take sinners back to the father

The analogy breaks down at the point of swearing allegiance. You see, to become part of the family in question, the family of Christ, it matters not how vehemently you swear and how hard you try to toe the line. If you aren't native-born, you just don't belong, plain and simple. No other road in here than native birth. And when you're native-born, dude, it's gonna show whether you try to or not.

Delafruita:
lets assume yahweh created the universe.lets assume i am in this world because of him.now lets assume the windows 7 operating system is a universe with its creator(god) been microsoft.does it make sense that microsoft will create the windows 7 without inputing certain codes that identifies its creator.is it also possible that microsoft will create the operating system and then create a villain(devil) that can crash it?probably.is it possible that microsoft will create a villain it wont be able to destroy?NO.thats what antiviruses are for.

Of course, identifying codes are there, but the contention in this debate is why the atheist/skeptic can't see them. You communicate with them everyday but are incapable of recognising them for what they are because you are losing the faculty necessary to do so and the more u reject those who show u the blinder u get to them.

Did Yahweh create a villain ever?

What's your point with the last bolded part?

Martian:

Then, the virgin Mary had a little Lamb.

Mary had a little lamb,
whose fleece was white as snow.

And everywhere that Mary went,
the lamb was sure to go.

It followed her to school one day
which was against the rules.

It made the children laugh and play,
to see a lamb at school.

And so the teacher turned it out,
but still it lingered near,

And waited patiently about,
till Mary did appear.

"Why does the lamb love Mary so?"
the eager children cry.

"Why, Mary loves the lamb, I know."
the teacher did reply.

Why, Mary loves the Lamb, because.
Lamb saves the world

What do we call Mary's Lamb
Lamb is Jesus Christ.

Sorry guys, couldn't help the delay Well, I'm here now and taking mkmyers45 first



I'm ignoring the bolded part for now. It may yet prove relevant.

First bolded. Why does "leadership by example" come to your mind?
Second bolded. How does God go back on His Word in this regard?

Sir, look closely at the bolded

- Yahweh is an immoral God because He commanded the extermination of the Amalelites among other things. I have found this argument established with the fact that Yahweh had given as one of His commandments, Thou shalt not kill. As it is said, is the lawgiver not greater than the law? Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.

The Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world (Pardon the fact that I can't give you the reference for this Scripture right now, I'm away from my Bible at present). That is, God established His Victory before there was even a battle. Furthermore, "the angels that kept not their first estate...hath he reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day" as Jude 6 says.
That things are well planned and accounted for without violating the will of any of His intelligent creation is not to say that human existence is a game show. It only says that the God Who made humans is far more intelligent than some of us might like

I am sorry i am not satisfied with your answer....maybe its better you use back-up scripture and explain better in your own understanding how the lamb was pre-slain and why even organize the battle in the first place? and please when did this battle take place so we can draw a time-line?

Delafruita:
man created the computer,is man more intelligent than the computer?man created the internet,as at last time i checked,man hadnt been able to match that creation in any way.thus your analogy is untenable

Not quite, I think. Do you know of any computer that does anything without human input both with tasking and programming? To say that the computer's great processing power is intelligence is the same as saying that the telescope is sight. Neither is true. The telescope is an aid to man's sight. Without man, the telescope could never do anything with the distant galaxies it's pointed at. In the same way, without a human telling the computer what to do and how to do it, the computer would gather dust. The computer is only an aid to man's own intelligence (and only one small part of it as it is) not an intelligence in itself My position is completely relevant.

Delafruita:
i though god said he honours his words more than his name.

Most certainly He does. What's your point?

Delafruita:
and in the process of waiting for judgement he is taking God's children who he loves so much,away from god

This is an assumption on your part. And who are these children of God that he's taking away from God?

Delafruita:
my friend,yahweh,allah,buddha,vishnu,zain,peter pan,spiderman,green goblin,sleeping beauty,pinocchio,zeus,mithra,astarte,baal,dagon,etc all fall within the same category.as for the "divine" beings,they are worshipped as the "only" way.allah claims he is god and nothing disproves this,yahweh makes same claim and nothing disproves it,vishnu,mithra,zeus claim same and nothing disproves it.its therefore unjustified for one to claim superiority over the other without providing "divine" evidence

If this were a thread to prove that Yahweh is the only God then it would be sensible to take you on. But this thread posits only that Yahweh has nothing to do with any other proclaimed God. It is foolishness and absurdity to throw Yahweh out simply because other gods fall short in some way. Unless there is a solid link between all these other gods and Yahweh, there is no reason to accept or reject Him with respect to their merits or lack of them.

Delafruita:
man created the computer,is man more intelligent than the computer?man created the internet,as at last time i checked,man hadnt been able to match that creation in any way.thus your analogy is untenable

Not quite, I think. Do you know of any computer that does anything without human input both with tasking and programming? To say that the computer's great processing power is intelligence is the same as saying that the telescope is sight. Neither is true. The telescope is an aid to man's sight. Without man, the telescope could never do anything with the distant galaxies it's pointed at. In the same way, without a human telling the computer what to do and how to do it, the computer would gather dust. The computer is only an aid to man's own intelligence (and only one small part of it as it is) not an intelligence in itself My position is completely relevant.

Delafruita:
i though god said he honours his words more than his name.

Most certainly He does. What's your point?

Delafruita:
and in the process of waiting for judgement he is taking God's children who he loves so much,away from god

This is an assumption on your part. And who are these children of God that he's taking away from God?

Delafruita:
my friend,yahweh,allah,buddha,vishnu,zain,peter pan,spiderman,green goblin,sleeping beauty,pinocchio,zeus,mithra,astarte,baal,dagon,etc all fall within the same category.as for the "divine" beings,they are worshipped as the "only" way.allah claims he is god and nothing disproves this,yahweh makes same claim and nothing disproves it,vishnu,mithra,zeus claim same and nothing disproves it.its therefore unjustified for one to claim superiority over the other without providing "divine" evidence

If this were a thread to prove that Yahweh is the only God then it would be sensible to take you on. But this thread posits only that Yahweh has nothing to do with any other proclaimed God. It is foolishness and absurdity to throw Yahweh out simply because other gods fall short in some way. Unless there is a solid link between all these other gods and Yahweh, there is no reason to accept or reject Him with respect to their merits or lack of them.

MacDaddy01:


Look at this joker! You have no rebuttal to my first point other than; "you dont have the spirit to interpret the bible."

Well, answer the rebuttal, if you may.

MacDaddy01:
As for my second point, it still stands. There exists the same proof for Allah and Yaweh- both from illogical and cavemen-made holy books

For lack of proof that elves and hobbits exist, are they the same, even though they come from the same book?

MacDaddy01:


Look at this joker! You have no rebuttal to my first point other than; "you dont have the spirit to interpret the bible."

Well, answer the rebuttal, if you may.

MacDaddy01:
As for my second point, it still stands. There exists the same proof for Allah and Yaweh- both from illogical and cavemen-made holy books

For lack of proof that elves and hobbits exist, are they the same, even though they come from the same book?

And dude, we ain't even started and the insults are out. What's up?

Ihedinobi:

I think you're failing to see my argument here. This thread was not set up to straighten out "contradictions" and "discrepancies" in the Bible. The only manner in which it touches these is in saying that atheists and skeptics discount the Bible's credibility and infallibility based on them. My position is that the atheist/skeptic or any unbeliever for that matter is not the right person to judge/interpret the Bible for pure lack of ability and adequate qualification. There is no true Christian who perceives contradiction in the Bible because things that appear contradictory in it only appear so. It's like trying to describe the uncertainty principle of the electron. You're told that an electron is both still and in motion at once. You say, "that's impossible!" The physicist attempts to explain the concept to you and simply because you lack the training that enables him to understand, you find it incomprehensible. How sensible is it to say the failure lies with him? And that's a mild example. The difference between the Christian and the unbeliever is a much wilder gulf than that between that big-brained nuclear physicist and you.



The analogy breaks down at the point of swearing allegiance. You see, to become part of the family in question, the family of Christ, it matters not how vehemently you swear and how hard you try to toe the line. If you aren't native-born, you just don't belong, plain and simple. No other road in here than native birth. And when you're native-born, dude, it's gonna show whether you try to or not.



Of course, identifying codes are there, but the contention in this debate is why the atheist/skeptic can't see them. You communicate with them everyday but are incapable of recognising them for what they are because you are losing the faculty necessary to do so and the more u reject those who show u the blinder u get to them.

Did Yahweh create a villain ever?

What's your point with the last bolded part?

Ihedinobi:

I think you're failing to see my argument here. This thread was not set up to straighten out "contradictions" and "discrepancies" in the Bible. The only manner in which it touches these is in saying that atheists and skeptics discount the Bible's credibility and infallibility based on them. My position is that the atheist/skeptic or any unbeliever for that matter is not the right person to judge/interpret the Bible for pure lack of ability and adequate qualification. There is no true Christian who perceives contradiction in the Bible because things that appear contradictory in it only appear so. It's like trying to describe the uncertainty principle of the electron. You're told that an electron is both still and in motion at once. You say, "that's impossible!" The physicist attempts to explain the concept to you and simply because you lack the training that enables him to understand, you find it incomprehensible. How sensible is it to say the failure lies with him? And that's a mild example. The difference between the Christian and the unbeliever is a much wilder gulf than that between that big-brained nuclear physicist and you.



The analogy breaks down at the point of swearing allegiance. You see, to become part of the family in question, the family of Christ, it matters not how vehemently you swear and how hard you try to toe the line. If you aren't native-born, you just don't belong, plain and simple. No other road in here than native birth. And when you're native-born, dude, it's gonna show whether you try to or not.



Of course, identifying codes are there, but the contention in this debate is why the atheist/skeptic can't see them. You communicate with them everyday but are incapable of recognising them for what they are because you are losing the faculty necessary to do so and the more u reject those who show u the blinder u get to them.

Did Yahweh create a villain ever?

What's your point with the last bolded part?

dude,the only reason christians fail to see the contradictions is because their brainwashing prevents them from seeing it.even they see,they cant piece it together.it takes a dispassionate,analytical mind to see it.
as for your argument that "it takes a spirit-filled mind to understand the bible",thats just bollocks.its the same bible whose infallibility claim is been torn to shreds that tell you those things.the bible is a book like the quran and the tripitaka and even the torah.those books could as well claim it takes a "spirit-filled mind" to understand them.
the physicist doesnt try to explain,he proves it with evidence.
what exactly do you mean by native-born?you are first a nigerian before been a christian.you are a native of nigeria.
if by now,you dont recognize satan as a villain then i have to question your understanding of religion.

mkmyers45:




Sir, look closely at the bolded

I did, man, still don't see what you probably want me to see.

mkmyers45:
I am sorry i am not satisfied with your answer....maybe its better you use back-up scripture and explain better in your own understanding how the lamb was pre-slain and why even organize the battle in the first place? and please when did this battle take place so we can draw a time-line?

You will have to excuse the unavailability of my Bible at the moment. I will definitely provide you with the passage that contains the information I just gave you, but I cannot do so right now.

However, your signature says something about a mining professional. Is that you? If it is, tell me if you plan for contingencies whenever you set about opening up a mine. If you do, then you do in a small way the same thing God did before creating anything: allow and provide for every contingency that would show up in the course of time once He created.

While I said that God established His Victory before the battle even began, I never said that He organised any battle? When did the battle start? I'm not sure about the relevance of that question, but shortly after God had created man, Satan enters the picture as an adversary. So it was very early in creation.

I did, man, still don't see what you probably want me to see.

Does God commit an immorality when He Himself "breaks" a law under which He is not bound? I think not. The law was given to men by God not the other way around. And God is not at all obliged to bind Himself to requirements He lays upon men.


To which laws can we say God is bound to? or is he above the law? will you obey a father who says one things and does the opposite?

You will have to excuse the unavailability of my Bible at the moment. I will definitely provide you with the passage that contains the information I just gave you, but I cannot do so right now.

However, your signature says something about a mining professional. Is that you? If it is, tell me if you plan for contingencies whenever you set about opening up a mine. If you do, then you do in a small way the same thing God did before creating anything: allow and provide for every contingency that would show up in the course of time once He created.

While I said that God established His Victory before the battle even began, I never said that He organised any battle? When did the battle start? I'm not sure about the relevance of that question, but shortly after God had created man, Satan enters the picture as an adversary. So it was very early in creation.

Sir, you have to be sure as a Christian....

Delafruita:

dude,the only reason christians fail to see the contradictions is because their brainwashing prevents them from seeing it.even they see,they cant piece it together.it takes a dispassionate,analytical mind to see it.
as for your argument that "it takes a spirit-filled mind to understand the bible",thats just bollocks.its the same bible whose infallibility claim is been torn to shreds that tell you those things.the bible is a book like the quran and the tripitaka and even the torah.those books could as well claim it takes a "spirit-filled mind" to understand them.
the physicist doesnt try to explain,he proves it with evidence.
what exactly do you mean by native-born?you are first a nigerian before been a christian.you are a native of nigeria.
if by now,you dont recognize satan as a villain then i have to question your understanding of religion.

Man, I'm about to take a break o. Have had some work come up. But let's deal with this.

My claim about the need of the indwelling of the Spirit of God is not really absurd, at least not more absurd than it is to say that you need rigorous training in advanced mathematics and quantum physics to understand strange things like the uncertainty principle. Those books, as you say, could claim the same, but do they? The Bible says what it says and tells you to test it. I am yet to see anyone with the Spirit of Christ finding contradictions in the Bible.
Again, when you speak of brainwashing, I wonder if you would apply that to all the training it takes to make a decent specialist in any given field.
The bolded part doesn't quite make sense and in fact is untrue. The physicist could not prove it to you even if he tried unless you were a physicist yourself and knew how to follow and question his proof. If you were a layman, the best he could do is explain most likely using something you could relate to as an analogy and possibly fail woefully at that if you could not first allow for the tweaks necessary to bring his idea home to you. If he were to delve into the equations that prove it or show you experiments that bear it out, you'd be overwhelmed with the information unless you yourself were trained to understand.

Native-born means just that: native-born. I was a Nigerian before I was born into the family of Christ but now I'm a native-born Christian. Everything I am (including my nationality as a Nigerian) is in light of my birth as a Christian. The way I belong biologically to Nigeria is less bonding than the way I belong spiritually to Christ.

Of course I know that Satan is a villain, I was only questioning your assumption that God made him one or brought him into creation as a villain.