Static

Hate
2004-07-08 21:00:04 (UTC)

GOD DOES NOT EXIST, I CAN PROVE IT:

The Anti-Bible
The Heliocentric and Geocentric theories:

According to The Bible, Earth is the center of the universe
(i.e. the Geocentric theory). Our satellites say otherwise.
Just in case you have been living under a rock since before
Galileo, the Heliocentric theory is in place now. That means
we revolve around the sun, not the sun around us. Way to
drop the accuracy ball God. Anyone care to refute the fact
that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Didn’t think so. If
The Bible is wrong on that account (as it is on many
others), who’s to say it’s not wrong all together? Is God
the one to say it’s true? Well then I’ll believe it when HE
tells me.

It also annoys me that The Bible says the Earth is flat and
used to be much bigger than the sun. Now it seems the sun is
a lot bigger than what The Bible says it should be. The
Earth on the other hand, to test Man's faith in the literal
veracity of scripture, has shrunk to become much smaller
than the sun, and has taken to circling the latter, instead
of vice versa, as originally established. Furthermore
(confirming its sinful nature), it has floated up off its
pillars or foundations, lost its four corners, and become a
silly ball, on which there just is no possible mountaintop
from which one could see all nations of the Earth.

Back on track with Earth:

And before I completely get off the Earth subject, The Bible
originally said that Europe, Asia and Africa were the entire
world (which also happened to be what people thought before
The Bible came around) but was later changed to include the
western hemisphere (after people learned of it). So how come
people can change the word of God when it suits them? Or did
God tell them to change it? God is one mighty fickle deity
if you ask me.

Now, like I said before, The Bible originally said Europe,
Asia and Africa were the entire world. We know this is false
because many people live on North America and South America
(care to say they don’t exist?). We also can tell that all
continents were originally one. We know this because of the
locations of fossils. Some fossils of land animals (like
dinosaurs for instance) that appear on some continents (i.e.
Africa) also appear on other continents (i.e. South
America). These land animals would not have been able to
swim across the Atlantic Ocean. This is because, they are,
land animals.

That is just some of the things that tell scientists that
the way continents are now was not how they always have
been. There have also been discoveries of ridges on the
ocean floors. Hot molten magma pours out of these ridges and
cools, and then hardens to form rock. This eventually pushes
the existing land out further and thus makes the land
formations change. This is also the cause of mountains, as
the land under the ocean pushes forward and outward, the
rocks up on dry land are forced upward. Another indication
that the continents are moving is the various fault lines on
land. The San Andreas Fault for example is slowly pushing
San Francisco and the rest of the south western coastal of
California into the ocean.

The Bible is also VERY inaccurate about the age of the
Earth. The Bible says the age of Earth can be determined by
adding up the ages of certain people. Doing so makes Earths
age come out to about 5,500-6,000 years. Well that’s odd, I
could have sworn we have used Carbon-14 to determine the age
of things that exceed 100,000 years. Maybe those old cave
paintings and such are really God’s brain trust, and helped
him create everything (sarcasm). And then again, maybe The
Bible is just wrong. It is also very odd that Earth is
supposedly 5500 years old because there is a tree in the
western United States that is 5500. Maybe that tree IS God,
damned Pagans had it right all along. I guess we best start
worshipping his mighty woody-ness, lest we face the wrath of
Hell. Either that or the Norse had it right and the tree is
really Yggdrasil. Well I guess we might want to watch out
for Ragnarok (sarcasm).

It’s these many inaccurate parts of The Bible about Earth
and its location/geographical features that are it’s biggest
flaw. And all of these have been proven wrong by science,
with no sight or sound of any God to defend his constituency.

Ice Ages:

Very inconvenient! They have to have occurred since the
Flood, since, according to Christians, the surface of the
Earth was reworked by the Flood (to create, for instance,
the Grand Canyon practically overnight), which would have
messed up all those marks of glaciers on the landscape. That
means mile-thick ice sheets had to advance and retreat again
and again, across half the Northern Hemisphere, with the
speed of freight trains. (As with plate tectonics, some
Christians seem to have abandoned complete denial of ice
ages [even though they're never mentioned in the Bible {How
could the true history of the world miss those?}], and
acknowledged a single ice age, which had to have occurred
within historical times.)

The Sky:

It has evaporated! In Adam's time it was clearly a solid
dome, a "firmament," which could separate waters above it
from those below on the Earth. By Noah's time it was still
solid enough to have windows in it that had to be opened to
let the rain through. I think that Christians that try to
rationalize (weasel) their way out of this one by calling it
"poetic metaphor" have given in to the godless materialists!
The Bible really is literal, in the true sense of the word.
The sky was a hard firmament with windows in it--but at some
time since then it evaporated. Anybody who says different is
a mealy-mouthed evolution-sympathizer.

Fossils:

Fossils have always been a thorn in the side of
Christianity. First of all, extinct creatures shouldn't even
exist in a perfect Creation, since their very extinction
implies that they were not so perfect. And there are so darn
many of them, of so many different kinds. Every excuse they
come up with for why there even are fossils of extinct
organisms makes Christians look silly. And the very fact
that they've come up with so many different, mutually
exclusive explanations would seem to indicate that,
essentially, they're clueless. I have personally been
offered all these sound, creation-scientific explanations of
what fossils are and how they got there:

-Dinosaurs were too big to go on the Ark, so they got buried
in the mud of the Flood. (How about extinct smaller
creatures--and what about the "fact" that Noah collected
pairs of all animals?)

-Extinct creatures were on the Ark. They died out later.
(How many seismosaurs, T. rexes, mastodons, and megatheria
can you fit on the head of a pin? And why rescue them if
their immediate future reads "extinction"?).

-Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by Satan and/or
materialistic science.

-Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by God to test
your faith. (And I will go to hell for falling for a trick
pulled by the Almighty Himself? Doesn't that seem just a bit
petty?)

Ribs:

Human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told,
on good authority (by Christians, whose scientific authority
is the Bible, and what could be more authoritative?), that
men have one less rib than women, because one of Adam's ribs
was removed to mold into Eve. My Christian counter-part has
generally become confused upon being asked if that means one
less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side.
Then his instructor in human origins became red in the face
and defensive, if not to say hostile, when asked if he has
ever actually counted ribs on male and female human
skeletons, living or deceased. Not that I've met him to ask
him in person to actually try this simplest of scientific
experiments, which could go a long way toward proving a
testable prediction of Christianity. (For members of the
Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number
of ribs as women.)

Well apparently the latest discovery in "creation science"
is that men used to have fewer ribs than women, but they
don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a whole
bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a
rib. An appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of
the world, so that we all can be brought into the Light of
True Bible Science! I don't supposed men (gasp) evolved the
extra rib? But that’s evolution! The Bible says that didn’t
happen!

DNA:

Ron Buckallew, a biologist is well aware of DNA, genetic
diversity, and how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if
Eve were made out of Adam's rib, it would seem that Eve is a
clone of Adam. Since these two were the parents of all
mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there
is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of
genetic diversity present in the human race. Even if you
were to concede that Adam's rib only played a small part in
Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure, with
different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all
of mankind [only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very
limited genetic diversity (unless of course you allow
mutations to play a role to diversify our genetic structure
- but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? -
evolution).

The Apostle Paul:

I would like to point out that in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus
3:9, Paul advises us to ignore "fables and endless
genealogies." The genealogies of Gen 10, Chr 1-9, Mt 1, and
Lk 3 are one of the key ways Christians have 'proved' the
Earth to be about 6,000 years old.

Secondly, in Titus 1:14, Paul tells us to ignore Jewish
fables. Wouldn't that mean most of the Old Testament, if not
all of Genesis? And does Genesis not tell of how God created
the Earth?

Well Paul is an Apostle, so he cannot lie and go against his
own God.

Their Own Lack of Faith:

(Watch them deny this one vehemently.) The reason Christians
so rabidly deny evolution is that they have so little faith
in the value and truth of the Bible that if one tiny detail
is shown to be wrong, then the whole rest of it can't be
depended on, either. In other words, their faith is so weak
that it will fall apart if one tiny brick is knocked out of
their feeble structure of faith (I call this the Jenga
Principle ). Real faith, like a solid structure, can
tolerate a brick or two loosened. Indeed, a real structure
and real faith are strengthened by the replacement of a weak
or defective brick with a new, stronger one (like replacing
the shoddy myth of a 6000-year-old Earth with the grandeur
of 4.5 billion years of Earth history).

Of all questions I now ask the most simplex. Why?:

If there is something God does not like, then why did he
make it? If God does not like atheists why does he give life
to them? I don’t want to hear anything like, “God can’t
control how you think.” or “God didn’t know how you would
think before he gave you life.”, because that is just a load
of crap. The Bible says God is omnipotent and omniscient.
Meaning he can do anything and knows everything. And in that
case he can control how I think and know how I think before
I think it. Or does God want people to think for themselves
and be their own people? If he does why would they get sent
to Hell if they decide to be free-thinking and not believe
in him?

If God does not like sin, then why did he make us capable of
sinning? Why would he make us capable of lust if we would
only get sent to Hell for it? By doing this he is only
condemning us to the one place he doesn’t want to go to,
Hell. Why are we capable of avarice, lust, sloth, pride,
envy, wrath and gluttony if they would only lead us down the
path of damnation?

Apparently God does not like murder. If he doesn’t want us
to kill each other, why does he give us the ability to take
another’s life? And if murder be so evil, why can we get off
the hook for it with him just by talking to a
Priest/Reverend, saying two Hail Marries and then pray for a
couple of minutes? Does all that give back what was
wrongfully taken from the one they killed? Benevolent my ass.

Heaven & Hell:

As a kid growing up, you probably had the fear of God put
into you (I know I did). You were taught in school and at
home that unless you believe, you are a sinner and will burn
in the fires of Hell (I know I was). Yet we are also taught
that God loves us all and if one sheep strays from the
flock, God will forgive. That is the biggest contradiction I
can find in Western religions. Also flawed is the concept of
Mass. If God is everywhere, can we not worship in our homes,
rather than having to go to some place special to worship him?

Western Religions pertaining to God have too many flaws in
them to be logical. I also fail to see the point in Priests
(or Reverends). If God is everywhere (as The Bible claims he
is) why must you go to special people to pray? And if God is
everywhere why must one go to a Priest (Reverend) to confess
ones sins? Shouldn’t something that is everywhere be able to
here your sins anywhere you choose to confess them? And
should God not be able to tell you how to repent for your
sins himself? Why must some preacher tell you to? Is he to
lazy to do it himself? If I sinned and wanted to confess I
would want to do it on the crapper. Get rid of two types of
shit at once. But apparently God needs a hearing aid (so to
speak).

God loves you, now get back in the fiery pits of hell you
sinner!:

God apparently loves everyone. Then why did he create Hell?
As punishment? If he is all loving then why does he not just
forgive us and let us into Heaven? True benevolence is
benevolence in spite of ones wrongs.

The Bible:

There is no proof that anything said in The Bible is true.
Saying “It‘s true because it is the word of God” proves
nothing. The Bible was not written by any God it was written
by people, human people. They might say God told them to
write it, but does that mean some deity came to them an told
them, word for word mind you, what to write? No, it doesn’t.
If Dr. Seuss had said God told him what to write, would you
all be worshipping the cat in the hat? The Bible say God is
omnipotent:

Omnipotent = can do anything

God = Omnipotent

So-

Not Omnipotent =/= God

Can God create a rock so heavy not even he can lift it? If
he can he is not omnipotent because he can’t lift it. If he
can lift it, he is not omnipotent because he can’t make it.

Therefore God cannot be omnipotent. And- Not Omnipotent =/= God

So the fact that no God can be omnipotent is proved.
Therefore The Bible is wrong in saying that, and if it is
wrong in that who’s to say it’s not wrong everywhere else?

The Bible’s flaws:

In The Bible it says, “Thou shall not lie with thy sister”
or something to that affect. What about Adam and Eve? If
they did it with each other then we are all descendants of
the same people, and are all guilty of incest. We are all
therefore sinners.

Lust. The deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins. The want for
something for it’s beauty. The Bible says that all of God’s
creations are beautiful. Why did God make everything
beautiful if it is a sin to want it for that? Should he not
have made everything ugly so we wouldn’t sin as much? Wasn’t
it nice of him to condemn us to an eternity in Hell for
wanting something he made?

Masturbation is a sin. God does not like the “seeds of life”
to be wasted (i.e. sperm and eggs). That means girls should
be getting pregnant ate the age of thirteen or so. I don’t
know about you, but I am sure comforted to know that your
God is a pedophile. I bet the man who created the Statutory
Rape laws is going to have a pleasant time in Hell.

According to Christianity, if you do not accept God as your
lord and savior you are going to go to Hell.

Well that must really suck for the Ethiopians and citizens
of other third-world countries. How fair is it for them, who
have never even been told who Jesus was or anything about
The Bible, that they are going to spend eternity in Hell?

The same for babies who die during pregnancy. Those damned
babies what sinners they are. Yet another flaw in God’s plans.

More of The Bible’s Contradictions:

DURING a long debate with a creationist and literalist
defender of Genesis, I was asked to consider several
biblical “miracles”, especially the “departures of Enoch and
Elijah”. Elijah ascended into heaven in a flaming chariot.

I remembered somebody once on TV saying only Christ had
ascended.

I also remembered the great miracle, “Sun, Stand Thou Still!”

This set me trying to locate where various miracles and
other notable passages were. As I searched, I found many
remarkable quotes and finally found, in John 3:13, that
indeed, “no man hath ascended” to heaven who didn't first
come from heaven, including Christ.

Am I urged to “believe” in God's “miracle” with Elijah, and
yet St John himself doesn't believe it or know about it or
misquoted God's words while writing 3:13?

The Bible itself presents evidence against its own claimed
miracles; indeed, against many of its own “words of God!”
What the Bible claims here it denies there; what it upholds
there, it condemns here.

The truth shall set you free. No falseness can be holy nor a
virtue no matter how old and sanctified it becomes. Right?
So let's know the truth about the Bible.

The Bible is so contradictory, virtually anything can be
defended from its passages. There may be more biblical
contradictions than in any book ever penned, proving, at
least, its writers did not believe one another.

And So, God Parted the Worlds:

IN GENESIS are two contradictory stories of creation. In
Genesis 1:20 & 21, “every living creature is brought forth
from the waters, including every winged fowl.” But in 2:19
God brings forth “every beast of the field and every fowl of
the air” from dry ground.

In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day,
completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of
the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4,
5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.

The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed
3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man
was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then
fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then
they were created after man.

Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The
second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27
versus 2:7,19).

In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously
(1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are
separate acts of creation.

IN GENESIS, the long discredited description of the heavens
as a “firmament” is a fundamental contradiction in the Bible
of the known realities of astronomy today. Biblical stars,
sun and moon are all embedded “in” this firmament. (The
meaning, during biblical times, of the word “firmament”, was
a “solid” body or orb, or the solid concentric domes holding
the heavenly bodies ~ Webster's Third International
Dictionary.) We are told there are waters below the
firmament, and told waters are "above" it, too (1:7). Really!!

Homosexuality? Yes? Well then this God isn’t for you:

In contrary to popular belief, homosexuality is not a sin.
It is sodomy that sends you to Hell. For you see, God does
not approve of any form of intercourse that cannot end in
pregnancy. That means no oral, no anal, and also no bestiality.

So what if you can’t have anal sex, you always have your
hand right? Wrong. Masturbation also wastes “the seeds of
life”. In fact Jesus said (referring to masturbation) that
you should cut of your right hand if it would cause you to
sin. The fact is that not even a simple hand job is approved
of by God. Not only does he try to limit your life, but also
your fun.

The Tower of Babel:

Along with Noah's Ark and several other patently silly
stories (in the light of modern understanding). I suspect
that they wish they didn't have to defend such myths as the
Tower of Babel.

The Bible story of why humanity speaks thousands of
different languages ranks right up there with the story of
Santa Claus and the stork bringing the children. A nice
bedtime story for the kids, were it not for the tendency to
blame a vengeful deity. Somebody has to set the record
straight and absolve God from all responsibility in this
case. Let's give it a try.

To start with, we have to make the fairly safe assumption
that the Babylonians at that time were not the most stupid
people on the face of the Earth. The assumption is safe,
since they managed to have an empire, albeit a modest one,
had a written language, kept books, etc. So, if they were
not stupid, then:

- Why did they want to build a tower and waste a tremendous
amount of resources to peek into the living room of a god
they didn't even believe in?

- Why would they build a tower in the lowlands when they
could get ahead by starting on the top of a mountain a few
hundred kilometers north?

- Why try building a huge tower in the lowlands (except
perhaps for defensive walls) where every brick had to be
made from mud?

- Finally, why would any god not just have a tremendous
belly laugh at the futility of his subjects? (And why has
God not responded similarly to modern skyscrapers--or are we
expected to believe that the pile of mud bricks was way
higher? And why would “God” even care, unless He actually
did live just a few hundred feet overhead, and a human who
reached His home could seriously challenge His supremacy?)

Well, at least we can answer that question. There is
absolutely no humor in The Bible (or any other religious
text that I know of). It's tough being a god--you are not
allowed to laugh.

It's quite odd that the Chinese, in their 8000 year recorded
history, failed to mention the collapse of the tower in any
of their chronicles. Perhaps they were too busy cleaning up
after the global flood, which they also forgot to mention.

I want to know: Why aren't all languages spoken everywhere?
Why did the people who got Hindi decide to move en masse to
India? Cherokee to North America? Why did all the Hebrew
speakers stick around the Middle East?

How high would such a tower have to be? Could
fundamentalists build one? What about satellites, moon
shots, and interplanetary missions? Haven't they already
gone higher than said tower?

I would also like to note that when the human race dispersed
from Babel, there appeared to have been a highly selective
dispersion and disappearance of plants and animals used as
food. For instance, when the Native Americans supposedly
left Babel, they took with them potatoes, corn, tomatoes,
tobacco, and turkeys, but they inexplicably left behind
useful items such as wheat, horses, cattle, pigs, and olive
trees, to name just a few. Other groups leaving Babel acted
in the same way. Why?

Furthermore, whatever food plants and animals they took with
them mysteriously vanished without a trace from the Middle
East! Why? Also, one would think that if a crop such as
tobacco, say, was prized enough by Native Americans to take
along, it must have been known to other citizens of Babel,
and they in turn would have taken it on their travels to
their countries, resulting in a worldwide distribution of
the crop. Why did they fail to do so? If a creationist has a
good explanation for the above, I'd like to hear it.

Stop learning. God likes his subjects stupid:

We all know the story of Adam and Eve and how they ate the
forbidden apple so I won’t retell the entire thing, but I
will give a brief recap:

Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Here they can do
whatever they want and have enough food to last for
eternity. But God does tell them they are not to eat the
apples on the apple tree or face banishment from his garden.
After a while the asp convinces them to eat the apples and
they are banished. The asp is punished by having his legs
removed. After being banished Adam and Eve are forced to
live a life of working for food via planting and harvesting.

The forbidden apples represented knowledge. The asp
temptation (Satan) and the removal of it’s legs, it’s
punishment and the reason why snakes slither. God apparently
didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit and therefore
obtain knowledge. But why? Maybe because the story was
created for the sole propose of explaining how Earth became
populate with people and holds no truth to it what-so-ever.

Another Genesis Oops (more about Adam and Eve):

The snake tells the truth-- God lies.

2:9 “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every
tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the
tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree
of knowledge of good and evil.”

There are two trees, right. We've got that.

2:16-17 “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.”

God says the knowledge tree will kill. Fair enough.

3:4-5 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not
surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil.”

But wait, the snake says the knowledge tree will give
knowledge! Let's conduct a little scientific experiment:

3:6 “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave
also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

And she died, right? That's what God said ...

3:7 “And the eyes of them both were opened” Oops.

3:14 “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou
hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above
every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and
dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:”

And this is the model for modern-day Christians, who get
equally tetchy when you use inconvenient facts to prove them
wrong. But just to be sure we're absolutely clear about what
the tree of knowledge of good and evil does:

3:22 “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as
one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth
his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
live for ever”

OK, and for future reference you might choose better code
words than “the tree of life” and "the tree of knowledge of
good and evil,” but we'll leave that. What I really want to
know is whom are You talking to in this particular passage?

The 10th chapter of Genesis recounts what happened to Noah's
sons and their descendants after the Flood as they
repopulated the Earth. Gen 10:1 through 10:5 recounts
Japheth's line and ends with the refrain “divided in their
lands; everyone after his tongue, after their families in
their nations.” Gen 10:6-20 recounts Ham's line and ends
with the refrain “after their familles, after their tongues
in their countries and in their nations.” Genesis 10:21-31
recounts Shem's line, ending with the refrain “after their
families, after their tongues, in their lands after their
nations.”

So they went forth multiplying and developing their own
languages, cultures and nations, okay, so far, so good. And
then at the start of chapter 11: “And the whole earth was
one language, and of one speech,” - Genesis 11:1.

Wait, was there one language or the many due to Noah’s sons.
And what about the Tower of Babel? What about all those
languages that God made every one speak?

“God” wants you to have sex, not love:

It has always been a strong Christian teaching that the sole
purposes of women are to reproduce. The Bible tells of a man
who died without impregnating his wife. It was the teaching
of God that if in the case of a man dieing without getting
his wife pregnant, that the oldest brother of his family
should get the widow of his late brother pregnant. The
brother pulled out before he ejaculated and his sperm fell
on the ground. God killed this man and sent him to Hell for
“wasting the seeds of life”. What does this show about God?
It shows that he thinks little of women. Would a benevolent
deity be so sexist and treat women as mere tools of
reproduction?

No. Perhaps this can be traced back to the ancient world
when The Bible was written and Christianity came to be. All
men thought of women only as sex toys. Only men could be
educated. Therefore only men could write. Therefore a man
wrote The Bible. Odd is it not that the same views expressed
by men from the time Christianity came to be (and from
centuries before) just happen to be the same as God? Perhaps
because ancient kings created God in their minds to help
control their kingdoms.

Noah’s Fallacy:

According to The Bible, Noah built an ark, put two of every
animal on it and sailed to for forty some-odd days until the
rain that caused the great floods stopped. Then a rainbow
appeared, signifying that the world would never flood again.

Good news for all you theists. Archeologists have discovered
remains of a great ark in the area of the Middle East. And
remains of many cities under the cities that point to a
great flood. In fact, using historical records and
archeological findings (i.e. finding rocks where they
shouldn’t be), scientists have found out that there was a
large flood in the Middle East. The waters from Black Sea
(being of a higher elevation than the neighboring area)
flooded an area next to it with quite a lot of water. In the
“great” flood all the land (in the neighboring vicinity) was
covered in 40 feet of water. And 40 feet of water is not
something I would call a flood of mythical proportions. The
reason for this flood was rather simple. A natural rock
barrier between the Black Sea and the neighboring area
collapsed due to heavy rains (combined with the already
massive amounts of water in the sea) being forced up against
the rocks. The natural barrier collapsed, and the nearby
land flooded.

Two of every animal? I find that hard to believe seeing as
how there are some animals that didn’t even live in the
Middle East area, I doubt that claim. And it wasn’t even
possible for him to get two of every animal that lived on
the continents he had access to onto one boat much less the
ones on the opposite side of the world.

At Least You Know Your Mind Has Been Somewhat Active In The
Last 2000 Years:

It seems no one (other than me of course) remembers the part
of the New Testament that said the mind was located in the
heart. So the human mind, just to be ornery, has moved from
the heart, where it resided through New Testament times,
into the brain? Am i the only one who thinks that is
bullshit? Just another one of The Bible's screw ups

“God” is for those who cannot live on their own:

Most people believe in God not for the reason of faith, but
because they need to, to help themselves believe things that
are clearly false. Their beliefs are not based on faith, but
on fear and other social influences.

God is for people who refuse to believe that when they die,
it is the end. Some people are afraid of death, and use the
notion of a supreme benevolent deity as a form of comfort.
To give them the false image that they are going to a better
place instead of dieing, even though they are dieing. God is
for people who are to egotistical to believe that things
will go on without them and that once they die it is the end
for them. These people think that things won’t work if they
are gone for good and refuse to believe that the end is THE
END. They use the notion of God as a way of assuring
themselves that they will live on forever in one way or
another, even though they won’t. Some people also use God as
an excuse for not doing things. If there is something they
are afraid to do or don’t want to do, and are afraid of the
consequences of not doing it socially, they will often use
their religion as an excuse for the not doing actions. This
will also work as an excuse for doing things others might
think ill of them for (again, in a social manner) and will
say they have to because of their religion. Whether these
influences are obvious or not varies from person to person.
Most of the time they are not obvious at all, and are hard
to see in the person’s character.

And to finish it off-- one more bit of Christian hypocrisy:

Many a time Christians have said, that one must only accept
what is written in The Bible as the word of God, and not to
listen to The Church. For what they say is often falsified,
and not God’s true word.

It is this hypocrisy that I shall now explore. There are
many biblical books that are not considered, by the the
Christian Church mind you, to be part of “The Holy Bible”.
The ones that are, are called Canon. Those that are not, are
called non-Canon.

Christians believe that the non-Canon are completely false
and not God’s word. They also say one shouldn’t rely on The
Church, for they are not God’s word. But The Church decides
what was Canon or not. So if Christians rely on the books
that are labeled Canon (by the church) for God’s word, are
they not ultimately relying on The Church?

What is a part of The Bible is, in the end, chosen by the
church. So when they say to rely on The Bible and not on The
Church, do they not contradict themselves? that’s some good
old fashioned Christian-logic (an oxymoron) for you--
Perhaps the eleventh Commandment should have been; “Thou
shalt follow blindly and askth not questions”




Ad: