Cultural Christians are just atheists that value the Bible or their cultural norms. Calling religion a metaphor (particularly where it can't be defended, rationalize, justified, downplayed, or ignored) just weakens theism overall, in exchange for dismissing criticism and invalidating scrutiny.

Here is a problem with religion being called a metaphor (namely by apologists), that no one seems to acknowledge or realize. Being culturally Christian (in I would say a conventional sense) is the same as being an atheist (whether agnostic or gnostic) who emphasizes value of the Bible (this applies to other religions as well of course, such as Islam). After all, most often when someone says that they are culturally religious, they are saying that they don't actually, genuinely believe in a literal God (which makes them admitted atheists) but they act as if they do. It doesn't matter if they don't like being called atheist, the term still (technically) applies. Also, if parts of your religion are increasingly becoming metaphorical over generations isn't that a sign that it's declining / receding?

Also, aren't people who believe religion is just a metaphor basically atheists?

Like they can call themselves "culturally Christian" (they don't actually genuinely believe in God but they act as if they do) but unless they genuinely believe in a literal God, then you can also call them "atheists who value the Bible", and isn't this a bad thing for (Christian) theism long term? They're usually agnostic atheists sure (as opposed to gnostic atheists), but they're atheist nonetheless. As I've mentioned, term atheist (technically) applies whether they like it or not.

Furthermore, calling parts of the bible metaphorical (for whatever reason) doesn't actually solve issues with the bible, and as mentioned, weakens theism (a genuine belief in a literal God). Calling Christianity a metaphor may net you less criticism and scrutiny of Christianity but in exchange the tactic is actually encouraging an atheism that values Christianity without actually solving issues in the bible that tend to cause people to become atheist.

Lastly isn't it more likely the case that parts of the bible become more metaphorical as they can increasingly no longer be defended or reconciled (whether by an entire christian denomination or an individual believer) and also, this begs the question, "...a metaphor for what?" Which itself prompts one to ask, "whose interpretation is correct?" (metaphorical or literal).

And isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that anyone taking any particularly part of the bible as literal is being ridiculous? After all, the person reading the text literally has an inherent advantage in their interpretation as they have to justify it less. Besides, Christianity in pass was much more fundamentalist as a whole than it is now (which indicates a decline in the belief). After all, Christians individually and collectively (and in between) have, do, and will take different parts of the bible literally and others as a metaphor. What I am saying is, if at some point something was generally accepted as literal, but as generations past and it is revealed to be barbaric, ignorant, etc., and it become a metaphor, does this not call into question the validity of the religion?

Like imagine doing that with more central doctrine like the resurrection of Jesus, or the existence of God itself. Imagine if you said those were just metaphors and no Christian actually believes in them literally and anyone who thinks that Christians believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and that God actually exists were being ridiculous, uncharitable, ignorant, or disingenous? Not only is it disrespectful, it's not true. And if that ever becomes the general doctrine, wouldn't that too at that point be an implicit admission that belief in God (and other central doctrine) is irrational?

Well that's how it comes off when you call religion metaphorical; like an implicit admission of irrationality and atheism.

What are your thoughts on all this?

Cc budaatum, HellVictorinho, LordReed, TheArranger, Dantedasz, MhizAngel99, truefact, elated177, Vic2Ree, TATIME, frosbel2, solite3, sonmvayina

P.S. To cut down on strawmen or misunderstandings before they crop up. I don't think all Christians of the past took all of the bible literally (though they generally took more of it literally than today). Just saying.

Metaphorical theism is another way to save theism given the amount of knowledge ordinary people now have access to.

XxSabrinaxX:
Cultural Christians are just atheists that value the Bible or their cultural norms. Calling religion a metaphor (particularly where it can't be defended, rationalize, justified, downplayed, or ignored) just weakens theism overall, in exchange for dismissing criticism and invalidating scrutiny.

Here is a problem with religion being called a metaphor (namely by apologists), that no one seems to acknowledge or realize. Being culturally Christian (in I would say a conventional sense) is the same as being an atheist (whether agnostic or gnostic) who emphasizes value of the Bible (this applies to other religions as well of course, such as Islam). After all, most often when someone says that they are culturally religious, they are saying that they don't actually, genuinely believe in a literal God (which makes them admitted atheists) but they act as if they do. It doesn't matter if they don't like being called atheist, the term still (technically) applies. Also, if parts of your religion are increasingly becoming metaphorical over generations isn't that a sign that it's declining / receding?

Also, aren't people who believe religion is just a metaphor basically atheists?

Like they can call themselves "culturally Christian" (they don't actually genuinely believe in God but they act as if they do) but unless they genuinely believe in a literal God, then you can also call them "atheists who value the Bible", and isn't this a bad thing for (Christian) theism long term? They're usually agnostic atheists sure (as opposed to gnostic atheists), but they're atheist nonetheless. As I've mentioned, term atheist (technically) applies whether they like it or not.

Furthermore, calling parts of the bible metaphorical (for whatever reason) doesn't actually solve issues with the bible, and as mentioned, weakens theism (a genuine belief in a literal God). Calling Christianity a metaphor may net you less criticism and scrutiny of Christianity but in exchange the tactic is actually encouraging an atheism that values Christianity without actually solving issues in the bible that tend to cause people to become atheist.

Lastly isn't it more likely the case that parts of the bible become more metaphorical as they can increasingly no longer be defended or reconciled (whether by an entire christian denomination or an individual believer) and also, this begs the question, "...a metaphor for what?" Which itself prompts one to ask, "whose interpretation is correct?" (metaphorical or literal).

And isn't a bit disingenuous to say that anyone taking any particularly part of the bible as literal is being ridiculous? After all, the person reading the text literally has an inherent advantage in their interpretation as they have to justify it less. Besides, Christianity in pass was much more fundamentalist as a whole than it is now (which indicates a decline in the belief). After all, Christians individually and collectively (and in between) have, do, and will take different parts of the bible literally and others as a metaphor. What I am saying is, if at some point something was generally accepted as literal, but as generations past and it is revealed to be barbaric, ignorant, etc., and it become a metaphor, does this not call into question the validity of the religion?

Like imagine doing that with more central doctrine like the resurrection of Jesus, or the existence of God itself. Imagine if you said those were just metaphors and no Christian actually believes in them literally and anyone who thinks that Christians believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and that God actually exists were being ridiculous, uncharitable, ignorant, or disingenous? Not only is it disrespectful, it's not true. And if that ever becomes the general doctrine, wouldn't that too at that point be an implicit admission that belief in God (and other central doctrine) is irrational?

Well that's how it comes off when you call religion metaphorical; like an implicit admission of irrationality and atheism.

What are your thoughts on all this?

Cc budaatum, HellVictorinho, LordReed, TheArranger, Dantedasz, MhizAngel99, truefact, elated177, Vic2Ree, TATIME, frosbel2, solite3, sonmvayina

P.S. To cut down on strawmen or misunderstandings before they crop up. I don't think all Christians of the past took all of the bible literally (though they generally took more of it literally than today). Just saying.

Christians won't agree.
But I understand your explanation.

Yep, its a real problem but I think it has been an issue since the foundations of the religion. The fight against heretical belief I think reflects this.

Will peruse this and contribute later on

XxSabrinaxX:
Cultural Christians are just atheists that value the Bible or their cultural norms. Calling religion a metaphor (particularly where it can't be defended, rationalize, justified, downplayed, or ignored) just weakens theism overall, in exchange for dismissing criticism and invalidating scrutiny.

Here is a problem with religion being called a metaphor (namely by apologists), that no one seems to acknowledge or realize. Being culturally Christian (in I would say a conventional sense) is the same as being an atheist (whether agnostic or gnostic) who emphasizes value of the Bible (this applies to other religions as well of course, such as Islam). After all, most often when someone says that they are culturally religious, they are saying that they don't actually, genuinely believe in a literal God (which makes them admitted atheists) but they act as if they do. It doesn't matter if they don't like being called atheist, the term still (technically) applies. Also, if parts of your religion are increasingly becoming metaphorical over generations isn't that a sign that it's declining / receding?

Also, aren't people who believe religion is just a metaphor basically atheists?

Like they can call themselves "culturally Christian" (they don't actually genuinely believe in God but they act as if they do) but unless they genuinely believe in a literal God, then you can also call them "atheists who value the Bible", and isn't this a bad thing for (Christian) theism long term? They're usually agnostic atheists sure (as opposed to gnostic atheists), but they're atheist nonetheless. As I've mentioned, term atheist (technically) applies whether they like it or not.

Furthermore, calling parts of the bible metaphorical (for whatever reason) doesn't actually solve issues with the bible, and as mentioned, weakens theism (a genuine belief in a literal God). Calling Christianity a metaphor may net you less criticism and scrutiny of Christianity but in exchange the tactic is actually encouraging an atheism that values Christianity without actually solving issues in the bible that tend to cause people to become atheist.

Lastly isn't it more likely the case that parts of the bible become more metaphorical as they can increasingly no longer be defended or reconciled (whether by an entire christian denomination or an individual believer) and also, this begs the question, "...a metaphor for what?" Which itself prompts one to ask, "whose interpretation is correct?" (metaphorical or literal).

And isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that anyone taking any particularly part of the bible as literal is being ridiculous? After all, the person reading the text literally has an inherent advantage in their interpretation as they have to justify it less. Besides, Christianity in pass was much more fundamentalist as a whole than it is now (which indicates a decline in the belief). After all, Christians individually and collectively (and in between) have, do, and will take different parts of the bible literally and others as a metaphor. What I am saying is, if at some point something was generally accepted as literal, but as generations past and it is revealed to be barbaric, ignorant, etc., and it become a metaphor, does this not call into question the validity of the religion?

Like imagine doing that with more central doctrine like the resurrection of Jesus, or the existence of God itself. Imagine if you said those were just metaphors and no Christian actually believes in them literally and anyone who thinks that Christians believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and that God actually exists were being ridiculous, uncharitable, ignorant, or disingenous? Not only is it disrespectful, it's not true. And if that ever becomes the general doctrine, wouldn't that too at that point be an implicit admission that belief in God (and other central doctrine) is irrational?

Well that's how it comes off when you call religion metaphorical; like an implicit admission of irrationality and atheism.

What are your thoughts on all this?

Cc budaatum, HellVictorinho, LordReed, TheArranger, Dantedasz, MhizAngel99, truefact, elated177, Vic2Ree, TATIME, frosbel2, solite3, sonmvayina

P.S. To cut down on strawmen or misunderstandings before they crop up. I don't think all Christians of the past took all of the bible literally (though they generally took more of it literally than today). Just saying.

https://www.nairaland.com/4689052/problem-being-moderate-christian-muslim




*) Here, I tackled one of such dishonest christian. I had to stop posting because I got banned.

https://www.nairaland.com/4920057/dishonest-ignorant-paxonel-calling-him

I have said this before. For these christians, it's not about what's true but about their feelings and convenience. They want to, at all cost, believe in their bullshit yet what it to suit the "present" facts and moral norms so it can be shown to true and they can practice it conveniently. It's the case where you see someone who calls herself a Muslim feminist. Like seriously?

I wrote a A Child's View in opposition to your opposition to the metaphorical view. You got me wondering if you oppose the literal view, the fundamental view, Conservative view, Liberal, Symbolical, Ethical, Mystical, eschatological, gnostical, hermeneutic and the atheistic view too, and I thought, why look through one eye if one can even change lenses?

XxSabrinaxX:
Cultural Christians are just atheists that value the Bible or their cultural norms. Calling religion a metaphor (particularly where it can't be defended, rationalize, justified, downplayed, or ignored) just weakens theism overall, in exchange for dismissing criticism and invalidating scrutiny.

Here is a problem with religion being called a metaphor (namely by apologists), that no one seems to acknowledge or realize. Being culturally Christian (in I would say a conventional sense) is the same as being an atheist (whether agnostic or gnostic) who emphasizes value of the Bible (this applies to other religions as well of course, such as Islam). After all, most often when someone says that they are culturally religious, they are saying that they don't actually, genuinely believe in a literal God (which makes them admitted atheists) but they act as if they do. It doesn't matter if they don't like being called atheist, the term still (technically) applies. Also, if parts of your religion are increasingly becoming metaphorical over generations isn't that a sign that it's declining / receding?

Also, aren't people who believe religion is just a metaphor basically atheists?

Like they can call themselves "culturally Christian" (they don't actually genuinely believe in God but they act as if they do) but unless they genuinely believe in a literal God, then you can also call them "atheists who value the Bible", and isn't this a bad thing for (Christian) theism long term? They're usually agnostic atheists sure (as opposed to gnostic atheists), but they're atheist nonetheless. As I've mentioned, term atheist (technically) applies whether they like it or not.

Furthermore, calling parts of the bible metaphorical (for whatever reason) doesn't actually solve issues with the bible, and as mentioned, weakens theism (a genuine belief in a literal God). Calling Christianity a metaphor may net you less criticism and scrutiny of Christianity but in exchange the tactic is actually encouraging an atheism that values Christianity without actually solving issues in the bible that tend to cause people to become atheist.

Lastly isn't it more likely the case that parts of the bible become more metaphorical as they can increasingly no longer be defended or reconciled (whether by an entire christian denomination or an individual believer) and also, this begs the question, "...a metaphor for what?" Which itself prompts one to ask, "whose interpretation is correct?" (metaphorical or literal).

And isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that anyone taking any particularly part of the bible as literal is being ridiculous? After all, the person reading the text literally has an inherent advantage in their interpretation as they have to justify it less. Besides, Christianity in pass was much more fundamentalist as a whole than it is now (which indicates a decline in the belief). After all, Christians individually and collectively (and in between) have, do, and will take different parts of the bible literally and others as a metaphor. What I am saying is, if at some point something was generally accepted as literal, but as generations past and it is revealed to be barbaric, ignorant, etc., and it become a metaphor, does this not call into question the validity of the religion?

Like imagine doing that with more central doctrine like the resurrection of Jesus, or the existence of God itself. Imagine if you said those were just metaphors and no Christian actually believes in them literally and anyone who thinks that Christians believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and that God actually exists were being ridiculous, uncharitable, ignorant, or disingenous? Not only is it disrespectful, it's not true. And if that ever becomes the general doctrine, wouldn't that too at that point be an implicit admission that belief in God (and other central doctrine) is irrational?

Well that's how it comes off when you call religion metaphorical; like an implicit admission of irrationality and atheism.

What are your thoughts on all this?

Cc budaatum, HellVictorinho, LordReed, TheArranger, Dantedasz, MhizAngel99, truefact, elated177, Vic2Ree, TATIME, frosbel2, solite3, sonmvayina

P.S. To cut down on strawmen or misunderstandings before they crop up. I don't think all Christians of the past took all of the bible literally (though they generally took more of it literally than today). Just saying.

XxSabrinaxX,

You are looking for knowledge; therefore, I suggest you tone down your approach. Why? Knowledge and debate are parrallel. They never meet.

Debate eventually leads to fight, and I have seen it on your threads. People are beginning to provoke you, and vice versa. It has happened to me countless of times..lol. I am not a saint.

I read where you said no one knows how this earth came to existence. You said you do not fully agree with the big bang theory and religion. However, the big bang theory makes more sense to you. Infact, I agree with you. The issue is I agree with you using logic.

But I think you have omitted one area - reasoning. Hmmm. This is why I said it is knowledge you are searching for.

For you to say you do not agree with the Big Bang theory, then, it means you might agree with me that science itself is flawed. And if sciences is flawed, logic is flawed too. For example, life after death is a topic science is beginning to explore in a different dimension now.

Serious questions you have put forward. If I am going to be honest with you, I have no logical answers to the conception of a virgin, the mystery behind a talking donkey, the ability of a hand to write on wall, etc. But I took another dimension and I reasoned deeply. Knowledge = Reasoning. Logic is just a small part of reasoning. Science itself is a fraction of reasoning in my own opinion.

Does God Exist? A big question. I abandoned science since I noticed that science itself is confusion. Today, it arrives at a conclusion, tomorrow it is refuted, and next tomorrow it seems further investigations are needed. I am sure it is why you too said that the Big Bang Theory is not 100% meaningful to you.

Again, religion does not make sense. I agree. It doesn't; however, it will start making sense with deep reasoning. But let me state clearly here: most religious people are empty barrels. There are many truths in the Bible. It just depends on how you interprete them. For example: Narrow is way to life, and broad is the way to destruction. It does not make sense to many. A simple explanation is even the people (so called christians) who always quote it are empty barrels and definitely are heading to destruction. Is it not so obvious that they are heading to destruction? Yet they never realise it. Now tell me: is this not a metaphor?

Of all your threads, this one interests me the most. My advice is that you do not throw away the metaphors in any book, especially in the Bible. Decoding metaphors = reasoning. This is life to me.

Knowledge is silence. It is not loud. Why do you think you can get answers to your questions with memes and strong debates. Except you want to show your ability to debate and win, and show how eloquent you are. And at the end you need to ask yourself if you grow more in knowledge with such approach.

Naturally, I avoid making comments when it comes to religion, but when critical reasoning is involved, I always participate. Hey! I abuse only scammers. And they are damn too many on this forum. I will write more about these scammers later. Many times, you just must pretend to be naive and play along to get to the root of the issue. You really do not need to debate aggressively if you really want to learn more. Knowledgeable people will move away from you if you appear to be too confrontational. But I am not ruling out writing or speaking many words because it is necessary at times.

Dearest XxSabrinaxX, I do not have much time to go through all your posts, but the ones I went through seem to omit another area. And it is my prayer you heed my advice and retrieve so you can learn more.

Best of luck!

Privettoall:
XxSabrinaxX,

You are looking for knowledge; therefore, I suggest you tone down your approach. Why? Knowledge and debate are parrallel. They never meet.

Debate eventually leads to fight, and I have seen it on your threads. People are beginning to provoke you, and vice versa. It has happened to me countless of times..lol. I am not a saint.

I read where you said no one knows how this earth came to existence. You said you do not fully agree with the big bang theory and religion. However, the big bang theory makes more sense to you. Infact, I agree with you. The issue is I agree with you using logic.

But I think you have omitted one area - reasoning. Hmmm. This is why I said it is knowledge you are searching for.

For you to say you do not agree with the Big Bang theory, then, it means you might agree with me that science itself is flawed. And if sciences is flawed, logic is flawed too. For example, life after death is a topic science is beginning to explore in a different dimension now.

Serious questions you have put forward. If I am going to be honest with you, I have no logical answers to the conception of a virgin, the mystery behind a talking donkey, the ability of a hand to write on wall, etc. But I took another dimension and I reasoned deeply. Knowledge = Reasoning. Logic is just a small part of reasoning. Science itself is a fraction of reasoning in my own opinion.

Does God Exist? A big question. I abandoned science since I noticed that science itself is confusion. Today, it arrives at a conclusion, tomorrow it is refuted, and next tomorrow it seems further investigations are needed. I am sure it is why you too said that the Big Bang Theory is not 100% meaningful to you.

Again, religion does not make sense. I agree. It doesn't; however, it will start making sense with deep reasoning. But let me state clearly here: most religious people are empty barrels. There are many truths in the Bible. It just depends on how you interprete them. For example: Narrow is way to life, and broad is the way to destruction. It does not make sense to many. A simple explanation is even the people (so called christians) who always quote it are empty barrels and definitely are heading to destruction. Is it not so obvious that they are heading to destruction? Yet they never realise it. Now tell me: is this not a metaphor?

Of all your threads, this one interests me the most. My advice is that you do not throw away the metaphors in any book, especially in the Bible. Decoding metaphors = reasoning. This is life to me.

Knowledge is silence. It is not loud. Why do you think you can get answers to your questions with memes and strong debates. Except you want to show your ability to debate and win, and show how eloquent you are. And at the end you need to ask yourself if you grow more in knowledge with such approach.

Naturally, I avoid making comments when it comes to religion, but when critical reasoning is involved, I always participate. Hey! I abuse only scammers. And they are damn too many on this forum. I will write more about these scammers later. Many times, you just must pretend to be naive and play along to get to the root of the issue. You really do not need to debate aggressively if you really want to learn more. Knowledgeable people will move away from you if you appear to be too confrontational. But I am not ruling out writing or speaking many words because it is necessary at times.

Dearest XxSabrinaxX, I do not have much time to go through all your posts, but the ones I went through seem to omit another area. And it is my prayer you heed my advice and retrieve so you can learn more.

Best of luck!

LMFAO! You've come to test your luck with XxSabrinaxX after it failed with Mobilia abi? LoL ko le werk!

XxSabrinaxX,

You are looking for knowledge; therefore, I suggest you tone down your approach. Why? Knowledge and debate are parrallel. They never meet.

Debate eventually leads to fight, and I have seen it on your threads. People are beginning to provoke you, and vice versa. It has happened to me countless of times..lol. I am not a saint.

I read where you said no one knows how this earth came to existence. You said you do not fully agree with the big bang theory and religion. However, the big bang theory makes more sense to you. Infact, I agree with you. The issue is I agree with you using logic.

But I think you have omitted one area - reasoning. Hmmm. This is why I said it is knowledge you are searching for.

For you to say you do not agree with the Big Bang theory, then, it means you might agree with me that science itself is flawed. And if sciences is flawed, logic is flawed too. For example, life after death is a topic science is beginning to explore in a different dimension now.

Serious questions you have put forward. If I am going to be honest with you, I have no logical answers to the conception of a virgin, the mystery behind a talking donkey, the ability of a hand to write on wall, etc. But I took another dimension and I reasoned deeply. Knowledge = Reasoning. Logic is just a small part of reasoning. Science itself is a fraction of reasoning in my own opinion.

Does God Exist? A big question. I abandoned science since I noticed that science itself is confusion. Today, it arrives at a conclusion, tomorrow it is refuted, and next tomorrow it seems further investigations are needed. I am sure it is why you too said that the Big Bang Theory is not 100% meaningful to you.

Again, religion does not make sense. I agree. It doesn't; however, it will start making sense with deep reasoning. But let me state clearly here: most religious people are empty barrels. There are many truths in the Bible. It just depends on how you interprete them. For example: Narrow is way to life, and broad is the way to destruction. It does not make sense to many. A simple explanation is even the people (so called christians) who always quote it are empty barrels and definitely are heading to destruction. Is it not so obvious that they are heading to destruction? Yet they never realise it. Now tell me: is this not a metaphor?

Of all your threads, this one interests me the most. My advice is that you do not throw away the metaphors in any book, especially in the Bible. Decoding metaphors = reasoning. This is life to me.

Knowledge is silence. It is not loud. Why do you think you can get answers to your questions with memes and strong debates. Except you want to show your ability to debate and win, and show how eloquent you are. And at the end you need to ask yourself if you grow more in knowledge with such approach.

Naturally, I avoid making comments when it comes to religion, but when critical reasoning is involved, I always participate. Hey! I abuse only scammers. And they are damn too many on this forum. I will write more about these scammers later. Many times, you just must pretend to be naive and play along to get to the root of the issue. You really do not need to debate aggressively if you really want to learn more. Knowledgeable people will move away from you if you appear to be too confrontational. But I am not ruling out writing or speaking many words because it is necessary at times.

Dearest XxSabrinaxX, I do not have much time to go through all your posts, but the ones I went through seem to omit another area. And it is my prayer you heed my advice and retrieve so you can learn more.

Best of luck!

Bro logic is open source, anyone can use logic. Logic does not depends on science. Rather the other way round. Logic can be user to dissect, understand and possibly proffer solution to a problem. By the can u give me the proper definition of science

The Book of Hebrew written by Christ Himself during His 40days Stay-on-Earth before His final Departure into The Sky, tells us
that
1, Genesis to Malachi are all metaphors predicting the coming of the Son of Man.
2, The Gospels are metaphoric responsibilities of The Son of Man and
3, The Epistles are metaphoric capabilities of the Son of Man to become The Son of God.

The only fact of The Bible is God, The Supreme Spirit and us through Trials and Struggles to graduate from Sons and Daughters of Men to Sons and Daughters of God, The Supreme Spirit.

So if you are looking for a book that is rigid and inflexible about Life, The Bible isn't. The Bible cannot be pinned down into a ridiculous corner for all sorts of accusations and vetuperations of the Atheists.

The Bible is flaulless.

orisa37:
The Book of Hebrew written by Christ Himself during His 40days Stay-on-Earth before His final Departure into The Sky, tells us
that
1, Genesis to Malachi are all metaphors predicting the coming of the Son of Man.
2, The Gospels are metaphoric responsibilities of The Son of Man and
3, The Epistles are metaphoric capabilities of the Son of Man to become The Son of God.

The only fact of The Bible is God, The Supreme Spirit and us through Trials and Struggles to graduate from Sons and Daughters of Men to Sons and Daughters of God, The Supreme Spirit.

So if you are looking for a book that is rigid and inflexible about Life, The Bible isn't. The Bible cannot be pinned down into a ridiculous corner for all sorts of accusations and vetuperations of the Atheists.

The Bible is flaulless.

And you thought you made sense with your write up

Nothing Christ does makes sense with Satan. Nothing Obasanjo does makes sense with Buhari.