Contradictions to the Trinity in the Bible

Contradictions to the Trinity in the Bible August 5, 2016

Broken eggLet’s remember the key traits of the Trinity. According to the Athanasian Creed,

The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited.…

So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. …

And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another.…

About Jesus, it says:

Perfect God; and perfect Man …

Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ.

Okay, okay, I get it. Three persons, all equal. None greater than another. Jesus is unlimited, almighty, and perfect.

But look to the Bible for confirmation and you’ll find that unlike the clear definition of monotheism in the Koran, the doctrine of the Trinity is not clear. It took almost four centuries to congeal.

Consider some Bible verses that challenge the Trinitarian concept as defined in the creed above. First, verses that portray Jesus as an ordinary person who didn’t know everything, who wasn’t completely on board with the program, who got impatient, and who spoke to God as you or I would.

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed (Matt. 8:10)

[Jesus] turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” (Mark 5:30)

[Jesus prayed,] “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” (Matt. 26:39)

Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed. (Luke 5:16)

You are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. (John 8:40)

[Jesus said,] “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

Faithless and perverse generation! How much longer must I be with you? How much longer must I put up with you? (Matthew 17:17)

Verses that state that only God has certain traits or abilities.

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matt. 24:36)

[Jesus said,] “The most important [commandment is:] The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mark 12:29)

God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:15–16)

Verses that portray Jesus as inferior to God.

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good.” (Matt. 19:17)

[Jesus said,] “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)

The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)

The Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28)

You have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. (Col. 3:1, see also 1 Peter 3:22)

There is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5)

Ever-nimble Christian apologists have had two thousand years to handwave responses to these. Perhaps they’ll argue that we’re seeing the limited human side of Jesus here, not the God side. Or that other verses can be brought in to bolster the Christian position. Nevertheless, there is no evidence for the Trinity coming from the Bible. It was invented by theologians centuries later.

The simplest explanation is that the Bible is a collection of books from authors (many unknown) who had similar but not identical religious beliefs, which has been modified in unknown ways over the centuries, and which has no more accuracy in its depiction of the supernatural than the Iliad.

See also: 

It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. 
Faith is something that you believe 
that nobody in his right mind would believe.
— Archie Bunker

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 6/14/13.)

Photo credit: Samuel Livingston, flickr, CC

 

"What "professor" is likely to address such matters?Which then begs the question, how many students ..."

Proposal For a Christian Rumspringa
"You are talking rubbish.Never talks anything but."

Proposal For a Christian Rumspringa
"You are talking rubbish. You are insulting the intelligence and integrity of college students and ..."

Proposal For a Christian Rumspringa

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • RichardSRussell

    Is this kind of like rock-paper-scissors, in which each one’s better than one of the others?

    Do you suppose they ever argue?

    Who would win in a fight, Superman or Spider-Man? (No, wait, different set of superheroes. My bad.)

    • Do you suppose they ever argue?

      If they do, the make-up sex must be incredible.

      • busterggi

        Six hands in unison???

        • Robert Templeton

          “All hands on dick!”

          * Sorry. It’s Friday. Could not resist. 😉

        • Ménage à trois in heaven must be quite a sight. I wonder any surreptitious videos have been taken.

    • Rt1583

      Of course they argue.

      Where do you think thunder, lightening, wind and rain comes from if not the weapons of these gods and the tears of the vanquished.

  • Kingasaurus

    —-Ever-nimble Christian apologists have had two thousand years to handwave
    responses to these. Perhaps they’ll argue that we’re seeing the limited
    human side of Jesus here, not the God side.—-

    Yeah, there’s always a way out. When you’re just playing word games and you don’t have to anchor your statements to anything observable, you can handwave away any contradiction.

    The frustrating part is that the handwave never had to be convincing enough to sway anyone else – it only has to be convincing enough to sway the deluded person who desperately wants to be convinced. A trivially easy matter. Even punting and calling it a “mystery” as a conversation-stopper is usually enough.

    Any reasonable person can see that ideas about what attributes a god possesses clearly change over time, as with nearly any human idea.

    But as we all know, Reason is the devil’s whore, right?

    • T-Paine

      Christian apologetics was never about providing reasons to become a christian – only about providing excuses to remain a christian.

    • I wonder if apologists know all that and lie to themselves. Or maybe they just lie to their flock

      • T-Paine

        It is hard for them to understand these things – especially when their livelihoods depend on them not understanding these things.

  • Kevin R. Cross

    It’s obvious. The whole “Trinity” thing was a power grab by early Christian leadership.
    Before all the regimented fol-de-rol of the Catholic Church got rolling, individual Christian groups rolled with a kind of communal system, without a real hierarchy. The Trinity, in particular, of all the early Christian inventions, is the least intuitive, requiring a strong ability to deny the obvious in favour of a more complicated explanation. Those who had leadership – what we’d call priests – wanted to cement their positions. So they borrowed a page from the Mystery Cults – a concept so difficult to argue with or about that those initiated into the “mysteries” could just shut down any challenge to their leadership. “Do you comprehend the ineffable beauty and truth of the Trinity in all it’s facets? No? Then don’t argue with your betters!”

    • GubbaBumpkin

      The whole “Trinity” thing was a power grab by early Christian leadership.

      I view it as a “We can never admit we were wrong” error.

      But you said there’s only one God.

      That’s right, we’re not pagan polytheists.

      But then there’s this Jesus guy. Isn’t he like a second God?

      It’s a mystery.

    • Pofarmer

      It’s kinda like Christianity was led by the most gullible for thousands of years.

  • Jacob Thane

    More than 50% of this article consists of just Bible verses. When a religion’s own source material can be used this effectively against itself, believers should be seeing some red flags…

    • Thought2Much

      Bob is just taking these all out of context! You have to read these verses in the original Greek with the aid of the Holy Spirit to fully understand why they don’t say what they seem to be saying!

      • MNb

        But only after praying the Lord’s Prayer seven times.

  • Without Malice

    So the Father is all-knowing and all-powerful and so is the Son and the Holy Spirit? Isn’t that about the greatest redundancy one can imagine. Why in God’s name (excuse the pun) would there be three such beings? And what kind of relationship can three such individuals have when each one knows what the others thinking at all times and knows what they’re going to be thinking at any time in the future? And of course to cover up the fact that Jesus was of limited intelligence while the Father was not, the church made up the two natures doctrine so they could claim that his human side didn’t know what the God side knew and that the two sides didn’t mix. How idiotic is that? It totally blows to smithereens the notion that the “Word” became flesh. And then we get to the doctrine that Jesus got all his humanity from his mother. Now, this may have made sense back in the day, but thanks to genetics we now know that any such being would be nothing but a clone of its mother. So that makes Jesus what? a cross dresser? Who knows, it’s all so stupid that I can’t believe I actually believed it at one time.

    • A nice summary, thanks.

    • Thought2Much

      Well, gosh, when you put it that way…

    • evodevo

      Christians hacked each other to pieces over this question for 500 years … See “Jesus Wars” …

      • Without Malice

        Great book. I proudly have it in my library.

    • Frank

      When you wise up you will believe the truth again.

      • adam

        But we have wised up already.

        It is still ignorant people like YOU who believe in MAGIC.

        • Frank

          Apparently not.

          I don’t believe in magic.

        • adam

          “God” is a supernatural character in the book.

          Resurrection is MAGIC as well.

          So are talking donkeys and snakes

        • How is Jesus doing a miracle not magic? They both call on the supernatural.

        • Frank

          It’s not magic at all. Jesus exercising his power is perfectly natural.

        • adam

          OK, then demonstrate some of Jesus’s miracles….

        • Frank

          Natural for Jesus.

          You really should pay attention instead of speaking in silly memes. So embarrassing for you.

        • adam

          So you can’t do any of this MAGIC?

          Only Jesus can break the laws of physics using MAGIC?

          How sad for you Frank, to never have grown up. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3dba1c546b1a633b67e268bc820689ee1d8736db7e718ed5d4f1e91a63d72aff.jpg

        • Frank

          Actually in quantum physics what you call miracles are quite possible.

        • busterggi

          Except quantum physics is real.

        • Frank

          If so then every miracle is possible in physics. Thanks for the support!

        • MNb

          That’s your non-sequitur (it doesn’t follow from what Busgerggi writes) and your strawman (it’s not what Quantum Physics claims).

        • adam

          Then obviously you should be able to do miracles.

          Please demonstrate. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/861387fbb6f768cc7523aaa98e4f4333f92509d2ffdc7bce0129546c1a50a958.jpg

        • Frank

          So embarrassing for you.

        • adam

          Not for me, I dont believe in the kind of MAGIC that you do.

        • Frank

          I don’t believe in magic.

        • adam
        • Frank

          No I didn’t. God isn’t magic.

        • adam
        • So you’re yet another in the class of Christian trolls who just want to be annoying? What do you suppose Jesus would have to say about that?

          Suggestion: get an argument, present it, and defend it. Or leave.

        • Frank

          I did.

          Don’t get mad at me that your argument fails miserably.

        • Did you, now? I missed it. Give me the argument again.

          You need to contribute to the conversation (being an asshole only makes baby Jesus cry) or leave. And we have ways of helping you leave, if it turns out you need help.

        • Frank
        • Give me another evidence-less claim that the post fails. Please.

        • adam

          “The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain.” from your link

          Nope

          It is EASILY explained.

          It just demonstrates how DISHONEST you and religion are.

        • Frank

          Just gets worse and worse for your simplistic meme comments. Wow.

        • Kodie

          That’s original Frank. This is his whole schtick. The more you try, the more he keeps answering like he’s winning an argument without posting any substance. Banworthy, in my opinion. He’ll just make another account though, this isn’t his first account.

        • I’m not the best on names, but this empty mindless “I konw you are, but what am I?” drive-by that seems to stick around like gum on your shoe is something we’ve had before. I just wonder if it’s the same guy.

        • MNb

          My guess is that this is the same Frank as the previous one – the one who ruins comments sections faster than moderators can ban him.

        • MNb

          Anything that embarrasses you or your imaginary sky daddy is a compliment for mentally healthy people.

        • MNb

          Not at all – Quantum Physics provides scientific, ie natural laws that even can be simplified to classical (eg Newtonian) natural laws.
          That’s not even close to what Adam and you call miracles.

        • al kimeea

          Ya, the real psychics aren’t so base as to play a lottery for personal gain. They are waaay more ethical than most. You can find them. Real ones don’t use neon signs. That’s how the cops find them.

          Faith healers would be in every hospital if polite society wasn’t still feeding Christians to the lions.

        • al kimeea

          That explains all the glass eyes and artificial limbs, some centuries old, found @ Lourdes

      • MNb

        You obviously never understood what the truth is, so I suggest you to follow your own advise.

        • Frank

          You are welcome to your opinion no matter how fallacious it might be.

        • adam

        • MNb

          Even better – I am welcome to my own opinion no matter how non-fallacious it might be. And non-fallacious it is.
          As expected you prefer to reject my sound suggestion.

  • MNb

    BobS must be thrilled: THE event of the year is going to happen soon in his beautiful city!

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/register_by_nex103053.html

    • Yup, and I’m already signed up (as you can imagine). Think of the opportunity to rub elbows with these icons of evolution denial!

      “Oh, look! There’s an evolution denier … and over there, another evolution denier, and he’s really famous!”

      But I’m bragging now. Sorry.

  • rubaxter

    So, really, the Crucifixion was just a cheap, carney trick?

    “Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides”
    (Unseen University motto)

    • Michael Neville

      For those whose Latin may be a little rusty that roughly translates as “now you see it, now you don’t.” Br. Moore, my 8th through 12th grade Latin teacher, would be so proud that I remembered a little of what he tried to teach me.

      • evodevo

        Amo, amas, amat is about all I remember lol

      • Otto

        Wow…taught by Brothers? I had some serious Nuns, never a Brother.

        You ever see Heaven Help Us?

        • Michael Neville

          I had nuns through 6th grade and then brothers (and laity) from 7th grade to 12th grade. I may not have appreciated it then but I did get a good education in Catholic schools.

          I’ve never even heard of Heaven Help Us.

        • Otto

          Oh I agree, I got a good education from Catholic schools, even though it was abusive at times.

          Heaven Help Us is a HBO movie put out in the 80’s about a Catholic school in NY. Very funny and true to Catholic experience. You can probably find on Netflix or somewhere else on the internet. I highly recommend it if you get the chance.

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089264/

    • Joe

      Well ,the buckets of cow’s blood probably weren’t cheap. The Roman centurion costumes were probably rented though.

  • Frank

    The trinity is solidly supported. Thanks for confirming it with those verse.

    • This is just a drive-by. Respond to the arguments in the post if you actually have something to say.

      • Frank

        Your own support proves the trinity. Thank you.

        • adam

          ….

        • Frank

          So sad you are reduced to this.

        • adam

          Yes, the Truth is just so, so truthful!

        • Matthew46

          You’re wasting everyone’s time here and contributing absolutely nothing. It’s time to start ignoring your posts altogether and flagging them. That’s all you are worth, Frank, about as much as a fence post on the side of a road.

        • Another evidence-less comment. It’s clear that the Trinity is no clearer to you than anyone else.

        • Frank

          Wrong again.

        • Michael Neville

          Then explain it, troll.

        • Frank

          Read the article and the verses. Thanks Bob!

        • Michael Neville

          That’s not an explanation, troll. That’s just you saying that you can’t explain it.

        • Kodie

          Frank can’t and will never explain, he’s just a dork who enjoys making one-line comments, but parks instead of driving by.

        • Translation: “Well, yeah, I got nothing. I’m totally firing blanks here. But maybe if I put on a false bravado, no one will notice that I’m big on talk but have absolutely no argument.”

          It’s all quite clear, Frank.

        • Frank

          Well you would know about firing intellectual blanks. I’ll give you that.

          http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

    • Michael Neville

      If the Trinity is solidly supported then it’s up to you to solidly support it. So far all you’ve done is troll us and drop non sequiturs.

      • Frank

        I don’t have to. Bob did a great job laying out the support.

        • Michael Neville

          Wrong again, troll. I don’t see any support from Bob. I saw him explain what Christians say and then show how it’s bullshit. Want to explain how the Trinity isn’t bullshit? I bet you can’t.

        • Frank

          So you are also unable to do a simple google search too? Expected.

          http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

        • adam

          here ya go

          All explained

        • epeeist

          And that they are committing a mereological error:

          1. G is defined as {F, S, H} (God defined as {Father,Son,Holy Spirit})

          2. F=G AND S=G AND H=G (God wholly present as Father and wholly present as Son, and wholly present as Holy Spirit)

          3. F=S=H=G (from 2, because ‘=’ is a transitive relation)

          4. G := {F, F, F} (from 1 and 3)

          5. G := {S, S, S} (from 1 and 3)

          6. G := {H, H, H} (from 1 and 3}

          7. G := [G, G, G] (from 1 and 3)

          8. G := {{F, S, H}, {F, S, H}, {F, S, H}} (from 7 and 1)

          Statements 4-8 contradict 1. and 2.

        • Michael Neville

          I didn’t ask for a google search, I asked you to give me an explanation.

        • Frank

          I did. But you actually have to read it.

        • Michael Neville

          No, asshole, I want YOU to explain it. I want to see if you can.

        • Frank

          Why are atheist so bitter and angry?

        • Michael Neville

          I’m neither bitter nor angry. I’m annoyed because I’ve asked you several times to explain something and you’ve beaten around the bush without giving an explanation or an admission that you can’t give an explanation. But you’re not worth getting angry over. Annoyance is all I can muster for you.

        • Frank

          So angry.

          Read the link. But we all know you must avoid the truth.

        • Michael Neville

          I did read the link. It didn’t answer the question that I asked you. That’s why I’m asking YOU, asshole Frank, for an explanation of the Trinity.

        • Frank

          Sure it did. Your insistence that it didn’t shows how bankrupt your view truly is.

        • Michael Neville

          Are you so stupid that you don’t understand the difference between giving your own explanation and directing me to a link which didn’t actually answer the question I asked?

          This is a rhetorical question. Of course you’re that stupid.

        • Frank

          Why would I repeat what is clearly explained already. Sorry if you incapable of grasping it.

        • Michael Neville

          Because, you stupid fuckwit, I told YOU to give me an explanation. I didn’t tell you to give me a link I told you, that’s you, you maggot infested heap of hog excrement, to support the Trinity.

          Look, shit for brains, just admit that you’re clueless about the Trinity. I won’t think the less of you for admitting that. I would be difficult for me to think any less of you.

        • Frank

          So angry. So very angry.

          I understand the trinity as well a s it can be understood. Don’t blame your a failure on me.

        • Kodie

          Frank is indeed stupid, and will never give you more. It’s wise to stop bothering to ask. He will give you short answers like “I did” and “Sad”. He has a lot of free time and zero substance or attention to actually argue. He thinks he’s winning. For all the bullshit time-wasting Christians out there, Frank doesn’t bother with engaging. His schtick entirely is winding up atheists by failing to engage at all and winning at it.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m fully aware that Frank is blowing me off. He couldn’t answer my question if a gun was held to his head. He’s getting off on giving me a run around. I’m getting off on calling him names and pointing out his stupidity.

        • adam

          “I’m fully aware that Frank is blowing me off. ”

          One of Frank’s greatest pleasures, I’ll bet.

        • busterggi

          Frank does suck royally.

        • MNb

          What else would we expect? Frank kneels and prays everyday, preferably in a dark room.

        • Frank is in timeout. If he comes back, it’ll have to be in another Disqus guise.

        • lady_black

          You didn’t actually read that link, did you? It says that you, Frank, cannot understand the trinity.

        • MNb

          Fyi: Frankie goes to Hollywood as BobS gave him a one way ticket, metaphorically speaking. Frankie won’t be back anytime soon.

        • lady_black

          He sent you a link that explains that the trinity cannot be understood by mere mortals.
          So he’s in effect saying “because I say so.”

        • Michael Neville

          I know, that’s why I kept telling him to explain it because his link didn’t.

        • adam

          Religious hypocrisy

        • Frank

          Everyone’s a hypocrite. Meaningless charge.q

          Still talking in pictures I see. So sad.

        • adam

          Everyone’s a hypocrite.

          Yep, even the character in your story book… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e190f9c289d102f5c67add71f5ab11e741d791c0289902a164db3e5f8d19e072.jpg

          A picture is worth a thousand words.

          A lot more than that looking at what you post…

        • Frank

          I don’t have a character in a story book.

          Love that you persist in your juvenile pictures. Makes it very easy for me.

        • adam

          Oh, I thought you believed in the Bible, my bad.

          Juvenile pictures?

          Too truthful and honest over your childish beliefs in MAGIC.

        • Frank

          Still juvenile I see.

          I don’t believe in magic.

        • You’re unable to present an argument. It’s pretty obvious you don’t have one.

          You had your chance. You could’ve contributed. Maybe you would’ve taught us something. But no, you had to be an asshole.

          Bye.

        • adam
        • Matthew46

          Yes you do Frank. Men gods are magic. Virgin birth is magic. Resurrection is magic. Anything that suspends natural law can be classified as magic.

        • MNb

          Because you are an asshole and a troll, producing nothing but bullshit (and being half as thick).
          How come you are so stupid that you ask a question MN already has answered?

    • Otto

      Like fiber in the GI tract.

    • Matthew46

      Frank – James and the apostles were referred to by Paul as the “Party of the circumcision”. Circumcision to Jews indicates they are under the Law. The Law says that God is one and indivisible, that meaning NO son – Isa. 43:10 Ye are my witnesses,saith the LORD, and my servant (Israel) whom I have chosen : that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he:before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” As such, there can be no trinity, Frank. There are no literal sons of god in Judaism.
      .
      The idea of a divine demi-god arose after Paul in the mid first century, a point which brought about his break with the apostles and his return to Rome in the late 50’s of the first century. The Trinity arose in Rome, based on their already present trinitarian pagan gods. It’s not a Jewish construct at all. Paul’s writings began in the mid 50’s and the gospels after the 70’s and with that the man Jesus was reinvented as a god. Nicea established the trinity formally and the bible texts were edited to reflect that.

  • Sophia Sadek

    The simplest explanation is that a committee of corrupt bishops fabricated the Trinity as a test for obedience to both the orthodox Church and the state of Caesar. Those who failed to affirm the Trinity were a threat to both.

    • Matthew46

      Read: Origins of Christianity (D.M.Murdock). The Christian trinity is based on the many pagan religions, most of which incorporated a trinity into their belief.

      • Sophia Sadek

        Trinities were big with the Gnostics. They also knew the correct definition of homoousios.

        • Matthew46

          The Gnostics believed in the god within, that every person had the godly spark within him with some element of secret knowledge to be gained by it. I’m not sure about the trinity being a part of their thinking. My own people believe along those lines, going back into the 1500’s and 1600’s and simply called themselves “a way of life” with the same belief of the god within, communal living, vegetarianism, pacifism, belief that Jesus was a man/wise teacher (but not a god) and passing on of his teachings by rote down through the generations without the use of the bible at all. Of course, they are the only Gnostics that I’ve known, so I could be wrong.

        • Sophia Sadek

          There were different Gnostic heresiarchs associated with different Gnostic traditions. Some of them considered Jesus to have been purely spirit with no corporal presence. They were called docetists.

  • Agabu

    I gotta say Bob, you always leave me chuckling at how you ineptly deal with Christian/biblical claims. I read your piece above, and I was like, “That’s it? That’s the best you can do?” Christians really don’t have anything to worry about with shortsighted people such as yourself exhibiting this sort of Machiavellian argumentation. On the one hand there’s plenty of misinformation, ignorance and irrationality in your article, while on the other hand it ironically has an adequate amount of Scripture to establish the Christian case for the doctrine of the Trinity, This is the best way to put it nicely. But lets go through this, and see how badly you mishandle the issue of the doctrine of the Trinity.

    1. You say: “Okay, okay, I get it. Three persons, all equal. None greater than another. Jesus is unlimited, almighty, and perfect. But look to the Bible for confirmation and you’ll find that unlike the clear definition of monotheism in the Koran, the doctrine of the Trinity is not clear. It took almost four centuries to congeal.”

    In the first place, there’s a clear acknowledgement of monotheism in the Bible as well as God’s three personal nature as we shall see below. New Testament Scripture (Mark 12:29, Romans 3:30) reaffirms Old Testament Scripture (Deuteronomy 6:4, Psalm 86:10) in teaching the fact that there is only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity, which is affirmed in the Athanasian Creed, which you partially quote above, is actually drawn from the Bible and not a later concoction as you allege. The notion that the doctrine of the Trinity is not clear in the Bible is utter nonsense. The Gospel of Matthew 28:18-20 has Jesus saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Notice that here Jesus claims authority over the whole universe that everywhere else the Bible claims only belongs to God (Deuteronomy 10:14). Jesus in effect claims to have divine rights over heaven and earth. The baptismal formula He bookends His claim to divine authority makes it very clear that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the one God. Why? Because He ascribes to each of them the same name. Read the passage closely again and you’ll notice that it isn’t the plural form “in the names of” but rather the singular form “in the name of.” God in the Bible never shares His name(or glory) with anyone else (Isaiah 42:8). The Greek word (onoma) translated name here refers to someone’s title and/or reputation. Jesus couldn’t be any more clear here in saying that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have the same title and reputation. The title and reputation they collectively share is clearly that of being God, and by extension Jesus here also claims to be God as the Son. Jesus on the one hand reaffirms and asserts that there’s only one God in His “in the name of” singular form phrase but also reveals that that one whose title and reputation is that of God consists of three distinguished as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is why He could claim all authority over heaven and earth because He is in effect God, albeit in human form of course. Right there in the Bible the doctrine of the Trinity is established long before the creeds reaffirmed it centuries later. in any case the creeds such as the Athanasian Creed were formulated to address theological concerns that emerged at the time challenging what orthodox Christian teaching affirmed about the nature of God from the very beginning. The creeds were often a response to erroneous teachings rather than renovations. While the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, the grouping of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is, as the above passage from the book of Matthew cited above shows among others. It is therefore simply not true, as you allege, that the doctrine of the Trinity took almost four centuries to congeal. What took four centuries is many of these rival teachings persisted for so long that each successive generation of Christians had to deal with them in one form or another even as many church communities were being overwhelmed with these new teachings vying for their allegiance. Whether Christians were facing Gnostics who denied the real humanity of Jesus or Arians who denied the divinity of Christ in the midst of other competing teachings that also sought to overturn Christian teaching, Christians sought to deal with these challenges by grappling with what was taught about God and Christ from the very beginning and rejecting those things that didn’t comport with apostolic tradition. The Bible was front and center in these disputes, with arguments over the proper use of biblical terminology often characterizing these controversies.

    2. You say: “Consider some Bible verses that challenge the Trinitarian concept as defined in the creed above. First, verses that portray Jesus as an ordinary person who didn’t know everything, who wasn’t completely on board with the program, who got impatient, and who spoke to God as you or I would.

    You quote a bunch of texts lifted from their natural context and then allege that they challenge the Trinitarian concept as encapsulated in the Athanasian Creed. The problem is simply quoting these passages doesn’t necessarily prove your point. So the verses you quote have Jesus being so human, that is, Jesus was amazed, unaware of who touched Him, unsure about dying, prayed to God, was impatient with people’s faithlessness and perversity. So what? How does it challenge the concept of the Trinity? The Athanasian Creed further down elaborates, “Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a
    reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father
    as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His
    manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two,
    but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into
    flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether,
    not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as
    the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;”

    The New Testament affirms that Jesus was a real human being. He was a demi-god or some sort of divinized human being. The creed affirms that Jesus possessed the attributes of real humanity, meaning as a human being he could be amazed, grow in knowledge, be unaware of things and not know everything. Don’t forget that He was born as a real human baby that did what all human babies do. He had to grow up, from an infant to a toddler; from a toddler to a tween; from a tween to a teen; and from a teen to an adult, and all its attendant limitations. He got thirsty, hungry, he walked, ran, laughed, cried and also had to pee and poop, just like any human being. No orthodox Christian denies the humanity of Jesus. But here’s the thing: the limitations of Jesus as a human being are just that, limitations with respect to His humanity. He isn’t a hybrid god-man. Like the Creed says that Jesus is, “of a reasonable soul and flesh subsisting.” The Creed further warns that the divine nature and the human nature shouldn’t be confused. They are not an admixture or anything of the sort. Unfortunately for you, what the Creed warns against is precisely what you’ve done in your ham-fisted analysis. Ignoring what the Creed affirms about Jesus as a human being just to bolster your nonsense that Jesus Christ’s limitations with respect to His humanity challenge the Trinitarian concept is truly a figment of your imagination. Your criticisms here are as irrational as they come. I don’t expect you to acknowledge this, because, you know, in your narrow mindedness, Christians can’t be right, right?

    Next up you highlight “Verses that state that only God has certain traits or abilities.” I wish I could say these verses prove your point that they challenge the doctrine of the Trinity but, my friend, they do not. Matthew 24:46 makes the point that only God knows of that day or hour. Since the grammatical construction is in the present participle, the Son not knowing is referring to Jesus as He was speaking then as a human being. At the time He could say, He didn’t know of that day and hour. His knowledge as a human being had limits, which is something the Athanasian Creed acknowledges in order to be faithful to what the Bible says. But notice Jesus makes it very clear that only God knows, which is the point, The divine being knows all. Created beings like angels and human beings do not know. Jesus whose human form is part of the created order partakes of its limitations. Jesus here is acknowledging His limitations as a human being while highlighting God’s unlimited knowledge. Yes the Father knows because He is God, but the Son doesn’t know because He is on earth as a human being. This doesn’t challenge the doctrine of the Trinity at all. It rather proves the long held Christian position that while the Father and the Son are the same being but they are not the same person. They are quite distinct, which once again is emphasised over and over in the Athanasian Creed. Mark 12:29 is a reaffirmation of biblical monotheism. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated to preserve monotheism on the one hand while faithfully acknowledging the revealing of the one God as consisting of three persons. I Timothy 6:15-16 applies titles such as King and kings and Lord of lords to God. These are terms that are elsewhere applied to Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:16). If anything, these verses establish the fact that there’s indeed only one God. Christians don’t believe in more than one God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit aren’t three gods. They are one God.

    Then you go on to highlight verses that portray Jesus as inferior to God. Once again the Athanasian Creed pounds home the fact that Jesus Christ the Son is “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.” Matthew 19:17 sets up the fact that only God is good. Jesus here isn’t denying His own goodness, He;s calling attention to God’s unique one of a kind goodness that no ordinary human being has. In reality He tacitly affirms that He is in fact God by going on to set forth what is actually good to the questioning guy. John 14:28 is in the present participle. As Jesus is still in the real world still yet to go back to the Father, the Father is indeed greater than He is. He is speaking as a human being sent by God the Father into the world. This is why the Creed even acknowledges that Jesus Christ is “inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.” This is appropriate given that Jesus human nature isn’t anything other human nature, albeit taken into the divine nature though remaining quite distinct from it. The head of Christ is God because God is God over all. Jesus human nature is subservient to His divine nature. The Son is subject to the Father who put everything under Him. Why? So that God may be all in all. Here Jesus is once again being assigned divine attributes. Christ being seated at the right hand of God is a claim of deity for Him. The right hand of God is a metaphor for the place of highest honour. Jesus is heaven’s cosmic King. The right hand of God is in effect the throne of God Himself, which makes Jesus, well, God Himself. Indeed, there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. why? Because only Jesus Christ is fittingly “anchored” in both worlds so to speak. On one hand He is divine and has all the attributes of God, while on the other hand He took into Himself real humanity and shares in our limitations, which makes Him the perfect mediator between God and mankind. He knows everything God knows, and also knows everything in human nature.

    3. You say, “Ever-nimble Christian apologists have had two thousand years to handwave responses to these. Perhaps they’ll argue that we’re seeing the limited human side of Jesus here, not the God side. Or that other verses can be
    brought in to bolster the Christian position. Nevertheless, there is no evidence for the Trinity coming from the Bible. It was invented by theologians centuries later.”

    Such vacuous assertions is why I’m chuckling away here. The Athanasian Creed is hardly a hand wave response to anything in the Bible. It takes biblical teaching far too seriously for that. You on the other hand do not. You don’t go into any amount of detail to show that any of the Bible verses you cite challenge the doctrine of the Trinity. You just assume that they do. You quote them, leave it at that and think you’ve made your case. Sorry, you haven’t made any case at all. Let alone a compelling one. Only someone dense will buy into the tripe you’re hawking here. You’re right about one thing though, we Christians do distinguish between Jesus Christ’s human side and His God side. We’ve done so for centuries from the very beginning. As I’ve already shown above, there’s evidence for the Trinity in the Bible like Matthew 28:18-29 showed. No later theologians invented the doctrine of the Trinity. Tertullian of Carthage (155-240 AD) is the oldest extant writer to use the term Trinity (Latin: trinitas). His formulation was built on bringing to the fore what the New Testament writings taught about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You are nothing but some one in a long line of naysayers challenging the grouping of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit whom Christians have long resisted in their quest to be faithful to what has always been taught as true from the very beginning as preserved in New Testament Scripture. The fiction that the doctrine of the Trinity is a later invention is the real invention here of historical revisionists such as yourself because it suits your biases against biblical Christianity.

    4. You say. “The simplest explanation is that the Bible is a collection of books from authors (many unknown) who had similar but not identical religious
    beliefs, which has been modified in unknown ways over the centuries, and
    which has no more accuracy in its depiction of the supernatural than
    the Iliad.”

    This isn’t an explanation. It is pure speculation. I wish I could say it’s the product of a colourful imagination, but that would be giving you too much credit. While the Bible is indeed a collection of books, the core belief of one God over all is affirmed by every author. To claim that the Bible has been modified in unknown ways over the centuries begs the question. If the ways it’s been modified are unknown, how do you know that it has actually been modified? Why subscribe to this at all with zero evidence? But if you have evidence that it has been modified, why say it’s unknown? You can’t have it both ways here. This sort of irrationality riddles your article a great deal that I gotta say that the only contradictions to the Trinity in the Bible are really contradictions in your own approach to the Bible, an approach that, as I have pointed out elsewhere under other articles in the comments section on your blog, is terrible.

    • Jacob Thane

      Holy shit, tl;dr

      And this is exactly the reason why Bob’s arguments are more sensible than yours. His are short and succinct, and digestible for an average reader. If your wall of text is required reading for making sense of the bible, then are you really surprised that god isn’t so obvious to us average folk after all?

      I guess what I’m saying is that if you need to play interpreter for a book that really ought to be understandable at face value (god revealing himself via his scriptures, etc, etc), I’m more inclined to call bullshit on both you and your book.

      • Agabu

        Your inane response to my analysis of Bob’s rather glib grasp of biblical texts and doctrine has nothing to do with being an average reader who really wants to know and understand. If you did, you would read through the piece, and ask questions for clarification, if you didn’t understand anything. The Bible is indeed often understandable at face value. But some things in it require intellectual exertion of a mature sort that the immature and ignorant, if too lazy to think, will default into calling it bullshit. Give me a real criticism, not a ridiculous cop out.

        • The Bible is indeed often understandable at face value

          “Often”? You undersell the Bible, my friend. The Bible is usually understandable at face value. The problem is when “it’s a contradiction” or “it reflects the morality of primitive people from 3000 years ago” or “that part might’ve been added in by later scribes” are dismissed as possible explanations before you start. Then it can be hard to understand.

        • MNb

          Good job missing JB’s point. I am happy to repeat it.

          ” if you need to play interpreter for a book that really ought to be understandable at face value (god revealing himself via his scriptures, etc, etc), I’m more inclined to call bullshit on both you and your book.”

        • Rudy R

          But some things in it require intellectual exertion of a mature sort that the immature and ignorant, if too lazy to think, will default into calling it bullshit.

          So the natural conclusion of intellectual exertion of Biblical texts would result in the belief in the Christian god? Could it not result in calling it bullshit?

        • adam

          ” The Bible is indeed often understandable at face value. “

        • Agabu

          Ah, the beauty of God’s care and the wonders of His justice. Love it. Thanks man.

        • adam

        • Jacob Thane

          No, my response to you is steeped in 30 years of having been a fellow believer. I had my own interpretations and defenses, just like you appear to have. The difference between us is that I never tried to hide my interpretations behind the guise of needing “intellectual exertion” to understand a supposed *relationship*.

          Like many other Christians who come here, you appear to be rather self-serving. Why are you here again? If you’re trying to convert anyone while simultaneously being a dick, I have bad news for you, buddy.

        • adam

          “But some things in it require intellectual exertion of a mature sort that the immature and ignorant, if too lazy to think, will default into calling it bullshit. ”

          Yep

        • Agabu

          Yep. Wonderful Scripture. Truly awesome.

        • adam

          Yes, the primary problem with the ‘Bible’

        • MNb

          And we have another christian apologist who lacks empathy, the very thing Jesus preached.
          Wonderful indeed how you confirm the utter failure of your own Great Hero.

    • 3000 words? Seriously? Prune it down next time.

      I’ll give a brief response.

      I read your piece above, and I was like, “That’s it? That’s the best you can do?”

      Rule of thumb: when they come out of the gate declaring victory, there is likely very little evidence here.

      there’s a clear acknowledgement of monotheism in the Bible …

      Right.

      … as well as God’s three personal nature

      Not really.

      The doctrine of the Trinity, which is affirmed in the Athanasian Creed, which you partially quote above, is actually drawn from the Bible

      Cool. Show me.

      “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

      That’s it? That’s the declaration of the Trinity? You can get the Athanasian Creed from this?

      Guess again.

      But it’s good we’ve got an expert on the Trinity to help us understand it. Give us a short paragraph explaining it—you know, the one but not three and three but not one part.

      Right there in the Bible the doctrine of the Trinity is established long before the creeds reaffirmed it centuries later.

      Wrong, and obviously so. If it were clearly in the Bible, it would be asserted immediately by the early church fathers. Hell—if it were clearly in the Bible, it would be clear in the Bible! We’d have the Athanasian Creed (or some equivalent) right there, that whole 3 but not 1 + 1 but not 3 thing.

      It is therefore simply not true, as you allege, that the doctrine of the Trinity took almost four centuries to congeal. What took four centuries is many of these rival teachings persisted for so long that each successive generation of Christians had to deal with them in one form or another

      The Trinity is not clearly in the Bible + rival interpretations held sway for centuries. Sounds like things aren’t as clear as some people would have you believe.

      So the verses you quote have Jesus being so human, that is, Jesus was amazed, unaware of who touched Him, unsure about dying, prayed to God, was impatient with people’s faithlessness and perversity. So what? How does it challenge the concept of the Trinity?

      Inequality among the three parties to the Trinity.

      The New Testament affirms that Jesus was a real human being .

      So you can be a human (fallible, surprised, not omniscient, etc.) or you can be God? Never both? OK, got it.

      Your criticisms here are as irrational as they come. I don’t expect you to acknowledge this, because, you know, in your narrow mindedness, Christians can’t be right, right?

      Correct. No Christian has ever made a true statement.

      Tertullian of Carthage (155-240 AD) is the oldest extant writer to use the term Trinity (Latin: trinitas).

      Was the concept of the Trinity in the conversation of the second century? OK. Not really what we’re talking about.

      The fiction that the doctrine of the Trinity is a later invention is the real invention here of historical revisionists such as yourself because it suits your biases against biblical Christianity.

      Suggestion for next time: a little less assholery and a little more terse, thoughtful analysis. The meta comments don’t do much except flag for me that you’ve got to fill in the holes with bluster.

      This isn’t an explanation. It is pure speculation.

      Unlike your God hypothesis, which is firmly based on the many proven examples of supernatural agency in our world, right? You really need to avoid charging “pure speculation” when you’re the one with the supernatural explanation.

      the core belief of one God over all is affirmed by every author.

      Not doing your claim of the Trinity much good here.

      If the ways it’s been modified are unknown, how do you know that it has actually been modified?

      Know? I never said that I know. I said that it was an explanation. Again, watch out for setting the bar too high or I might demand to know how we all can know that God exists. Explanations haven’t been compelling so far …

      Why subscribe to this at all with zero evidence?

      Interesting point. If only history showed us examples of myth and legend …

      • MNb

        Wow, BobS, you’ve received one of the biggest unintential compliments ever.

        “this sort of Machiavellian argumentation”
        Macchiavelli was one of the best political thinkers in history and is still relevant today. Had some American politicians applied it the Middle East might have been less messy.

        • I very much enjoyed Machiavelli’s The Prince. Unfortunately, the word “Machiavellian” has taken on undertones that diverge from what the man actually said/stood for.

        • MNb

          As Bertrand Russell formulated it:

          “It is the custom to be shocked by him, and he certainly is sometimes shocking. But many other men would be equally so if they were equally free from humbug….. Much of the conventional obloquy that attaches to his name is due to the indignation of hypocrites, who hate the frank avowing of evil-doing.”
          Spot on.

          If you have read The Prince you can’t be surprised by the success (and at this moment failure) of The Donald.

        • Myna A.

          An outstanding book on Machiavelli’s life and writings is, Machiavelli: A Life Beyond Ideology, by Paul Oppenheimer.

          http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/machiavelli-9781847252210/

          After one of the best author interviews I’ve ever heard, I purchased the book. This was about four or so years ago. The work brings a depth to the era and Niccolò Machiavelli that is beyond fascinating.

          https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Comparative-Literature/Faculty-Bios/Paul-Oppenheimer

        • Too many good books to read …

        • Myna A.

          Ain’t it the truth.

      • Agabu

        -Arrogance(No Christian has ever made a true statement.);

        -Bravado (But it’s good we’ve got an expert on the Trinity to help us understand it. Give us a short paragraph explaining it—you know, the one but not three and three but not one part.);

        -Bait and switch tactics (Unlike your God hypothesis, which is firmly based on the many proven examples of supernatural agency in our world, right? You really need to avoid charging “pure speculation” when you’re the one with the supernatural explanation.);

        -Name calling (a little less assholery and a little more terse, thoughtful analysis.);

        -Self-righteous pretensions (watch out for setting the bar too high or I might demand to know how we all can know that God exists.)

        This is the sum of your response. You claim to want more terse thoughtful analysis, which I gave. And you respond with no analysis at all but just, “explanations haven’t been compelling so far.” I gave a thorough explanation of Matthew 28:19 as evidence for the Trinity, and your response was mere bluster and evasive manouvers about wanting three but not one wording. Matthew 28:19 provides that in summary. The rest of the Bible claims the Father as God, Son as God and the Holy Spirit as God. In this respect it is a cumulative case taking into account all that is said about each distinct person, and Creeds such as the Athanasian Creed explain in abbreviated form the biblical teaching on each of them.Whether Christianity is myth/legend is irrelevant here. What’s relevant is what Christians believed as they interacted with the revelation they received.

        You haven’t done yourself any favours in raising any substantial objections. All I have gotten from you is just speculative explanations that ignore historical realities and biblical context. Yes, I’m still cracking up here at how inept you are at handling christian teaching. I’ve been sidelined by giggles at all the nonsense you continue to spout.

        • -Arrogance(No Christian has ever made a true statement.);

          No, sarcasm. Are you a native English speaker?

          I gave a thorough explanation of Matthew 28:19 as evidence for the Trinity, and your response was mere bluster and evasive manouvers about wanting three but not one wording.

          Show me how that is equivalent to the Athanasian Creed (or pick some other definition of the Trinity if you’d prefer). And if that verse is not equivalent, what besides faith and handwaving is the Creed based on?

          The Trinity isn’t in the Bible. If you want to say that several verses can be pulled out and shown to be compatible with a Trinity, I’ll agree with that, but that’s very little on which to base the fundamental statement of God on.

          Worse, you need to show that the Bible uniformly says this about God. That is, that there are no verses that could be used to oppose a Trinitarian view.

          What’s relevant is what Christians believed as they interacted with the revelation they received.

          And was the Trinity universally accepted in the 1st-century church? Was it accepted by anyone?

          Yes, I’m still cracking up here at how inept you are at handling christian teaching. I’ve been sidelined by giggles at all the nonsense you continue to spout.

          The little “you’re an idiot” sign-off is your version of XOXO, I guess? Cute trademark–it suits you.

          Arrogance? Bravado? Self-righteous pretensions? Looks like you’ve got a log in your eye.

        • Agabu

          Didn’t call you an idiot. You called you an idiot. Methinks you just clumsily handle biblical teaching. Idiocy and ineptitude, not exactly the same thing my native English-speaking friend. A log in my eye? Nice touch, I’m all too aware of specks that irritate my eyes every now and then. But I took some time here to take them out of my eyes so I could see clearly and help you out a bit to see better also. Anyway, you can stamp your feet, and allege all you want that the Trinity isn’t in the Bible. That’s just you, a non Christian who doesn’t believe these things. It is. Overall, the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are to be found in the pervasive pattern of divine activity to which the New Testament bears witness…. There is the closest of connections between the Father, Son, and Spirit in the New Testament writings. Time after time, New Testament passages link together these three elements as part of a greater whole. The totality of God’s saving presence and power can only be expressed by involving all three elements. Matthew 28:19 links the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to the same NAME by which believing disciples are baptized. 2 Corinthians 13:14 links Jesus Christ the Son, God the Father and the Holy Spirit with the bestowal of a blessing. 1 Peter 1:1-2 links the Father, Spirit and Jesus Christ to working in tandem and together in choosing people for God. But these are only a sampling of other similar passages. See also Romans 14:17-18; 1 Corinthians 2:2-5; 6:11;12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:6-8; 1 Thessalonians 1:3-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 and Titus 3:4-6. Read each of these passages and note how God (Father), Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are brought together as instruments of salvation. As is plain to see the Bible uniformly says all this about God. The Trinity is in effect a doctrine not revealed merely in words but instead in the very action of God in salvation.

          Such passages show that New Testament Christianity is implicitly Trinitarian. Of course, none of these passages say directly that “God is a Trinity…” or “This is the doctrine of the Trinity…,” but they don’t need to. The books of the New Testament are not formal, point-by-point treatises of doctrine. Nonetheless, these and other Scriptures speak easily and without any self-consciousness of God (Father), Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit working together as one. First century writers like Matthew, Peter, John and Paul show no feeling of strangeness in joining these divine Persons together as a unity in their work of salvation. Once again, the Athanasian Creed was a response to false teaching that articulated the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the basis of teachings in the writings of the New Testament. Since the whole body of New Testament literature, all written in the first century, reflects the Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together in bring salvation to bear on people, first century Christian communities held to this. Was the “Trinity” or the grouping of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit accepted by anyone in the first century? I think a responsible analysis of the New Testament as I show above says so.

        • MNb

          You genuinely think that during Antiquity what a handful authors wrote down automatically was accepted by everyone?
          Wow, that’s terribly naïve.

        • adam

          “That’s just you, a non Christian who doesn’t believe these things.”

          Why should we?

        • Are you saying that the Trinity is clearly and unambiguously in the Bible? Then explain why it took centuries for early Christians to agree to what it actually meant.

          Or are you saying that the Trinity is … well, kinda in the Bible, if you know where to look? In that case, what does this do to your argument?

          If you had a time machine, I think neither Jesus nor Paul would know what you were talking about when you asked them to explain the Trinity.

          You give verses used to support the doctrine. I notice you didn’t give any verses that were used by the early Christians to argue for something different than the Trinity.

          Of course, none of these passages say directly that “God is a Trinity…” or “This is the doctrine of the Trinity…,” but they don’t need to.

          Yeah, they kinda do. The centuries-long process culminating in the acceptance of the doctrine makes clear that the Trinity is just a manmade interpretation of a manmade document.

          the Athanasian Creed was a response to false teaching

          “False teaching” … supported by verses in the Bible? Just like your “correct” teaching? Sounds pretty symmetric to me.

          One side won—not much of a statement that it’s unambiguously in the Bible.

        • Agabu

          Yes I am saying that the Trinity (grouped as Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is clearly and unambiguously in Bible. It’s not kinda in the Bible, it is in the Bible. I don’t need a time machine to talk to Jesus or Paul, we have the entire New Testament canon of Scripture to plumb through for their thoughts. I gave a litany of verses to support the doctrine. I already gave an analysis of the verses that you allege challenge the concept of the Trinity. Every single one of them touch on the human side of Jesus. Jesus is no where spoken of as having such limitations on His divine side. The burden here is on you to prove otherwise.

          There was no centuries long process culminating in the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. There was just people for centuries persistently challenging the biblical legitimacy of the teaching that from the beginning was taken as a given, and Christians addressing those challenges using Scripture to combat it. At the time you say, Trinitarianism won, much of the Christian Church was in the grip of the non-Trinitarian Arians. False teaching supported by verses in the Bible is always asymmetrical. This is characteristic of your position against the doctrine of the Trinity. This is why Christians have long resisted the Jesus-is-not-God positions in all their forms. The simple fact is the Jesus-is-not-God position violates the God-is-one position. Hardly symmetrical.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You don’t half write some rubbish.

        • Michael Neville

          If the Arians had won the purely political dispute at the First Council of Nicea in 325 then you would be telling us all about how homoousianism was hetrodox and heretical. Incidentally the Mormons are non-Trinitarian.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Incidentally the Mormons are non-Trinitarian.

          Nor are the JW’s trinitarian, nor are those on the list at the link below…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nontrinitarian_denominations

          This is why I can safely say Agabu writes ignorant rubbish.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Isn’t it amusing that as far as Agabu is concerned, non-Trinitarianism is a false teaching. Meaning those that follow it are heretics and not true Christians. That means that Sir Issac Newton was a heretical not true Christian. Yet how often do we see Christians wanting to claim one of the greatest scientists ever, as one of their own in debates?

          Sheer hypocrisy.

        • Myna

          Isn’t it amusing that as far as Agabu is concerned, non-Trinitarianism is a false teaching.

          And a poor imitation besides.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c2ebef632a15a6fc639b3952ee3df853bed0e91f08b8143d6bbd530d80d97df2.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Trinitarianism is older than Christianity by a long chalk and there are Christians that are well aware of the influence presented by these early Trinity’s on Christianity.

          Many who believe in the Trinity are surprised, perhaps shocked, to learn that the idea of divine beings existing as trinities or triads long predated Christianity. Yet, as we will see, the evidence is abundantly documented.

          https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/how-ancient-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption-of-the

          Of course these aren’t “troooo xtians” in Agabu’s eyes.

          The oldest and probably the original form of the Trinity is that found in the Brahmin and Hindoo systems—the terms of which are—1. Brahma, the Father or supreme God. 2. Vishnu, the incarnate Word and Creator. 3. Siva, the Spirit of God, i.e., the Holy Spirit or Ghost—each answering to corresponding terms of the Christian Trinity, and yet two thousand years older, according to Dr. Smith.

          http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/wscs/wscs29.htm

        • Myna

          And the Hindu Trimurti is not vague (The Supreme, The Creator, The Destroyer), which is why the Christian Trinity is such a poor imitation.

          As in Ecclesiastes: There is nothing new under the sun. Christians would do well to remember that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The problem with a committee decision on this nonsense was the various compromises that had to be made before an agreement was achieved. Ergo, the clusterfuck that was the end result of it all.

        • That’s fascinating. I do wonder at the authority of the sources, however.

          The second reference is from Kersey Graves, whose 1875 book is seen as unscholarly. I don’t know about the other.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Agreed…my point was to show Agabu some fellow Christian thinking on the subject. I might dig a bit deeper just for the sake of interest, but not now. We’ve a big game on today, cup semi-final between the biggest rivals in football (soccer), the “Old Firm”, so am off to the club to watch and partake in some alcoholic refreshment in the process.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Firm

        • Michael Neville

          cup semi-final between the biggest rivals in football (soccer)

          Real Madrid is playing Barça?

        • 1888? Wow–that is old.

          I’m planning a trip to Scotland next June, with a focus on the western islands. I’ve never been to Scotland before.

          I thought you were from Ireland? Of course, I realize that doesn’t mean you can’t take an interest in Scottish teams.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well I’m an Ulster Scots…and as far as the Celtic team is concerned, it was set up by Catholic Irish Marist Brother Walfrid.

          The club [Celtic] was founded in 1887 with the purpose of alleviating poverty in the immigrant Irish population in the East End of Glasgow.

          From the link…

          The clubs have large fan bases around Glasgow but also supporters clubs in most towns throughout Scotland and Northern Ireland and in many cities around the world.

          http://rangers.co.uk/fans/supporters-clubs/global-supporters-clubs/#Canada

          Ranger was founded in 1872 by the way.

          I’m planning a trip to Scotland next June, with a focus on the western islands. I’ve never been to Scotland before.

          You will have a ball. The place is beautiful and steeped in history.

          My own clan is pretty ancient…

          https://www.houseofnames.com/craig-family-crest

        • adam

          “Yes I am saying that the Trinity (grouped as Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is clearly and unambiguously in Bible. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48f64686cc56c93e340da908278a26b5ca4234795178a430344b7c7698c95824.jpg

        • epeeist

          Nice. I usually point people to a picture of the Scutum Fidei and try to get them to write a description in Boolean algebra. It can’t be done, unless you drop the requirement for transitivity.

        • Yes I am saying that the Trinity (grouped as Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is clearly and unambiguously in Bible. It’s not kinda in the Bible, it is in the Bible.

          You’ve said nothing new; you’ve not responded to my concerns. So I’ll just point everyone else back to my previous comment.

          I don’t need a time machine to talk to Jesus or Paul, we have the entire New Testament canon of Scripture to plumb through for their thoughts.

          Then do so. Is the Trinity an important concept? Then Jesus should sit down with the disciples and explain it to them. He doesn’t.

          I gave a litany of verses to support the doctrine.

          Which, I must repeat, doesn’t address my concerns.

          There was no centuries long process culminating in the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity.

          Maybe you need to review the conclusions of the various church councils.

          There was just people for centuries persistently challenging the biblical legitimacy of the teaching that from the beginning was taken as a given, and Christians addressing those challenges using Scripture to combat it.

          So those that agreed with you were correct, and those that disagreed were not. Wow—must be great being clairvoyant.

          At the time you say, Trinitarianism won, much of the Christian Church was in the grip of the non-Trinitarian Arians.

          Two groups using the same Bible to reach incompatible conclusions (not just on the Trinity question but on many others). What does it say that omnipotent God/Jesus couldn’t get their perfect message down on paper any clearer than this?

          The simple fact is the Jesus-is-not-God position violates the God-is-one position.

          God is one? If you’re going to claim monotheism, then reject Trinitarianism. The Muslims are right: you’re polytheists.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There was just people for centuries persistently challenging the biblical legitimacy of the teaching that from the beginning was taken as a given, and Christians addressing those challenges using Scripture to combat it.

          So those that agreed with you were correct, and those that disagreed were not. Wow—must be great being clairvoyant.

          Amazing how it all worked out to fit Agabu’s worldview and not an alternative…all the bickering amongst each other for centuries and Agabu is on the correct side, astounding, miraculous even…it was all part of YahwehJesus’ great plan. ;s

        • Greg G.

          It’s like Agabu is smarter than God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost combined.

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve argued for years that the majority of Christians are polytheists with three official gods, Satan being at least a demigod (some Christians put him as almost equal to Yahweh), Catholics worshiping Mary as a goddess, plus all the auxiliary gods called saints and angels.

          The handwaving involved in trying to squeeze three people into one god or however Christians are claiming is boggling. It all comes down to “it’s a mystery we don’t understand.” That says to me, “we pulled this out of our collective asses and can’t put it back.”

        • Yes, Christianity does seem to be polytheistic.

          What’s so bad about polytheism? It seems no more nutty than monotheism? Presumably, they feel bound by OT claims that God is one, but so what? The OT says lots of nutty stuff that they ignore. Just ignore that, too. Or say that the Hebrews/Jews weren’t mature enough to understand, and the Trinity had to be introduced gradually.

        • Michael Neville

          I agree that polytheism makes as much or as little sense as monotheism. It’s just that Christians, including some who have visited this blog, insist despite all appearances that they’re monotheists. They see the other Abrahamist religions are monotheistic and so are jonesing monotheism.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And the thing is, it is well known. Even among senior Vatican priests.

          Bill Maher interviews Reginald Foster…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy1lPOzDvs4

        • Pofarmer

          That was actually a damned interesting interview.

          “You just let them live and die with their stupid ideas.”

          Wow.

        • Agabu

          Each of your concerns has been addressed. I gave a formal analysis of Matthew 28:19 and a number of verses you quoted without explanation as contradicting the Trinity to which you offered no alternative explanation. Simply hand-waving them away as not compelling showed that you have nothing but groundless criticism. Not surprising at all.

          The views of the various councils (Nicaea 320 AD, Constantinople 381 AD, Chalcedon 451 AD) all reaffirmed Trnitarianism for biblical reasons. I affirm Trinitarianism because it’s what the Bible teaches. The doctrine isn’t my invention, so ridiculous “rebuttals (which are really cop-outs)” like “those that agree with me” or “those that do not agree with me” address nothing serve to show your analytical incompetence.

          Yes, the were two groups that reached incompatible conclusions. But that has nothing to do with God not being clear with His message. As long as people are free moral agents, “clear messages” will always be misconstrued by some people (e.g. you, right here). That’s why we have holocaust deniers today even when the evidence is overwhelming that it actually happened. You’re just not very good at assessing the fine points of Christian doctrine, and laying it out as well as Christians do for easy examination. If the best you can do is allege God’s not clear enough, when no Christian in history has ever claimed the doctrine of the Trinity is something we hold to because we’re not sure if God was clear enough for this, so we’re going to hold to it for purposes of mystery or whatever, this sort of poor reasoning remains laughable.

          The title “God” through out the NT is never plural but singular, when its linked to the Father (as in Ephesians 4:5-6), the Son (as in Hebrews 1:8), and the Spirit (as in Hebrews 2:4), it remains a singular title. God is distinguished as consisting of these three. As such there’s no need to reject Trinitarianism in order to embrace monotheism. That only works if Trinitarianism claims the Father, the Son and the Spirit are three separate gods. If you properly analysed Trinitarian claims, you’d acknowledge its avowed monotheism even when you don’t agree with it. As things stand here, Christian theology isn’t really your strongest suit. Your analysis is terribly shortsighted, and lacking in any meaningful criticism.

        • As long as people are free moral agents, “clear messages” will always be misconstrued by some people (e.g. you, right here).

          Nice! Just assume you’re correct and it’s all downhill from there.

          You’re a waste of time. And it’s a shame–perhaps I could’ve learned something from you. But when you just run away from the issues, all the while screaming about how you’re right, you have nothing to offer.

          Christian theology isn’t really your strongest suit. Your analysis is terribly shortsighted, and lacking in any meaningful criticism.

          Yeah–like that.

        • Agabu

          There are no assumptions that I’m correct. There’s just attempts to articulate Christian teaching clearly, concisely and responsibly. The thing is, I’m in a better position to do that as a Christian than you who happens not to be a Christian. Just like you are in a better position to explain what you believe as an atheist than myself who happens not to be an atheist. You’re the one who seems to have a habit of running away from the issues. You didn’t substantively deal with any explanation I offered. You just picked a couple of peripheral matters and complain about not getting anything. Do you really want to learn? Then learn to accept correction. If not, then I wont “waste your time” anymore.

        • Michael Neville

          There are no assumptions that I’m correct.

          Sure you’re assuming you’re correct. If you weren’t making that assumption then you wouldn’t be telling us that you, as a Christian, are automatically more knowledgeable about Christianity than any non-Christian could possibly be.

          Just like you are in a better position to explain what you believe as an atheist than myself who happens not to be an atheist.

          atheism, n. 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
          2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
          dictionary.com

          Now you know exactly as much about atheism as atheists do.

        • Myna

          There are no assumptions that I’m correct.

          Of course you make an assumption that you are correct, but conveniently neglect that if you were correct, all Christians would agree with you, and they don’t.

          There’s just attempts to articulate Christian teaching clearly, concisely and responsibly.

          Within the perimeter of your own viewpoint. I’m not getting a sense of a biblical scholarship on your end. What accredited seminary did you study at? What qualifies you to actually teach anyone clearly, concisely and responsibly?

          The thing is, I’m in a better position to do that as a Christian than you who happens not to be a Christian. Just like you are in a better position to explain what you believe as an atheist than myself who happens not to be an atheist.

          And yet many, many atheists and agnostics have come from a biblical scholarship or lay Christian faith background. Many have attended Seminary. Have even been priests and ministers. Have been active in their respective churches. How are you in a better position than they? You are speaking to many ex-Christians right here. Why isn’t your argument working?

          You didn’t substantively deal with any explanation I offered.

          How so? Didn’t agree and provided text and/or known history to illustrate opposition?

          Do you really want to learn?

          Do you?

          Then learn to accept correction.

          About what? Your point of view?

          If not, then I wont “waste your time” anymore.

          You voluntarily visited. You knew you would face opposition. The problem, Agabu, is that you bring no compelling argument to the table…and absolutely no evidence beyond man-created text to support your claim.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Within the perimeter of your own viewpoint. I’m not getting a sense of a biblical scholarship on your end. What accredited seminary did you study at? What qualifies you to actually teach anyone clearly, concisely and responsibly?

          Easy. Agabu’s preferred choice of exegesis.

          Agabu doesn’t get it that there is more than one. The Trinitarian vis a vis the non-Trinitarian is just one shining example.

          Agabu believes he is a legend in his own lunch time.

        • Greg G.

          The thing is, I’m in a better position to do that as a Christian than you who happens not to be a Christian.

          As an ex-Christian, I can tell you that I am in a better positionf too understand the nature of the religion than you are because I can look at it more objectively than you can.

        • Agabu

          Ah, not so much. Your “no God” presuppositions put you in a less objective position. Ex-Christian? I think that makes you an even less objective critic.

        • Greg G.

          Your subjective beliefs betray you yet again. I didn’t want to become an ex-Christian. I tried to rekindle my faith for months. It had been shown to me that other Christian beliefs systems were wrong biblically and logically so I couldn’t shift into a different system. But then I saw that my belief system was making objectively false claims that I subjectively still wanted to believe but couldn’t. When viewed objectively, the views of the belief system peeled away.

        • Agabu

          Sure, you didn’t. The problem with all so-called ex-Christians is they weren’t really Christians to begin with. Being a Christian to the whole lot of them was about getting something out of it, like some prayer God must answer in the way they want, which in your case was a desire for a rekindling of faith. A “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” type scheme. Always a fail. No wonder your faith left you, it was misplaced and exposed to be not even in Christ Himself at all, but in your own wishes or dreams or some tailor made belief system. In the end, your disappointments and frustrations with what you alleged to be objectively false claims skewed your perspective to the point of it not really being objective after all.

          The Christian Church community is always better off without people who actually never really loved Jesus Christ Himself with their whole being for no other reason than that He is worth loving for who He is, the Son of God who rose from the dead on the third day. You left because you wanted to leave. It was about you. Which you’re entitled to. There are no witch hunts or a law in the Bible that says Christians must convene to have you executed as an apostate. You’re free to not be a Christian at all. The thing is everything about your story is self-centred. Never a virtue. A true Christian, always Christ-centred. And that has changed more lives, and kept them strong and true in the faith than self focused efforts to keep the faith.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The problem with all so-called ex-Christians is they weren’t really Christians to begin with.

          Now you are excelling at being a friggin’ cockwomble.

          That is the epitome of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” and it just demonstrates what an ignorant douche you are being.

        • Agabu

          I nowhere deny the presence of less than stellar behaviour among Christian people. So called ex-Christians leave the Christian community of their own accord and aren’t part of the group anymore. Your “no true Scotsman fallacy” insinuation doesn’t apply. Not surprising when one considers you really excel at being “Ignorant Amos.”

          Now bring on the name-calling and insults instead of arguing the point and be the name you call yourself.

        • Myna

          Man, Agabu, are you ignorant and you know what is said about ignorance.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b739453ba0552899bdd511cbd8317c6369cf47bbc8568435af4473a74e523774.jpg

        • busterggi

          “A true Christian, always Christ-centred.”

          And disgustingly smug.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Also some of that assholery that he accused Bob of not that long ago.

        • Agabu

          Says someone with self-righteous indignation.

        • MNb

          “The problem with all so-called ex-Christians is they weren’t really Christians to begin with.”
          Like a real christian you excel at post hoc explanations that predict exactly zilch. At the other hand people who value logic – ie not you – immediately recognize this as the logical fallacy called

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/135/No-True-Scotsman

          I also enjoyed your attempt at mind reading – you understand better what ex-christians think and feel than they themselves and in the meantime you wipe your sorry christian ass with Matth. 7:1. Of course that one is nothing but

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well

          What Busterggi writes underneath – you don’t spread the Good News, you spread the Bad News: your belief system can only be justified by disgusting smugness.

        • Michael Neville

          It always warms the cockles of my flinty heart to see a Christian display hypocrisy by using the No True Scotsman fallacy. It certainly is a favorite with them since they use it so often.

          Why do hearts have cockles? Considering the heart is a large muscle wouldn’t mussels of my heart be more appropriate?

        • Kodie

          What are the Cockles of Your Heart and Why Do They Need Warming? and a few other questions people had are answered (I’m not sure how well). Bonus for MNb, an answer to this question with Dutch etymology. Scroll down, the questions repeat but the answers don’t.

        • Michael Neville

          Thank you for that link. I liked some of the other questions and answers, particularly “What is the difference between brown and white onions? About $1 per kilo.”

          However there was one answer I know is wrong:

          What does the “D” in D-Day, the allied invasion of Europe on June 6, 1944, stand for?

          On this day, the allied troops landed on the French coast in a region called Normandy. The D stands for “debarquement”, the French equivalent for landing.

          The D stands for “day”. There was an elaborate schedule set up for the landing of more than 160,000 Allied troops along a 50-mile stretch of coast plus dropping three divisions of paratroops inland. Everything keyed on the day of the invasion, originally scheduled for 5 June 1944, which was D-Day. The paratroops actually dropped the day before D-Day, so they were scheduled to invade on D minus 1 (D – 1). Some of the preparations had to be made months in advance with scheduled completion on D – 30, D – 60, etc. After the invasion follow-on forces were landed on D plus 1 (D + 1) or later.

          If all the schedules are keyed to happen in relation to D-Day then the schedules can be adjusted as necessary. As it happens, weather postponed D-Day to 6 June but that didn’t affect the schedules. Also there were security considerations in calling the event D-Day rather than give an actual date. The first landings were supposed to happen at M-Minute of H-Hour but, of course, things never stay on schedule.

          Tune in again next time and I’ll explain why an armored fighting vehicle armed with a cannon is called a tank.

        • Kodie

          What is a brown onion? It seems to be an Australian site, so brown-skinned onions are what we call yellow onions. I only buy sweet onions now. Very interesting about the D-Day. It is an old article, but I wonder if you could correct them. It looks like some yahoo site combined with a newspaper column that also posts questions online for exclusive online good answers.

          Tables and placemats aren’t always square, and plates aren’t always round.

          Tables are square/rectangle because rooms are. A round table wastes space, isn’t as efficient to set, and because of the diameter is harder to fit in a room than a table with long sides and short sides.

          Placemats are rectangular because, next to the plate, you have silverware or flatware, at least one glass, and none of these things should touch the tabletop and scratch the wood. Placemats are a practical solution to tablecloths, which both cover the wood, and can be hard to clean and store while not in use, and you can probably have a lot more decorating variety with a few sets of placemats, but don’t get the idea they’re formal. Only tablecloths are formal. Don’t use placemats and tablecloths together, you redundant fool.

          Plates are round because potter’s wheels, no shit. You can also turn your plate like a classless dummy and nobody would notice, because it’s round. If it’s square, it’s easier to drink the leftover gravy and funnel the last few peas at the end of a meal right into your face. That’s not the reason I don’t like square plates. It’s also more aesthetically pleasing to mix squares and circles than have a round table with only round shapes, so get a table with corners and round plates.

        • Agabu

          I’m spreading disgusting smugness? Says the person who is busy congratulating his own awesomeness in this response.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHA!
          Thanks for immediately confirming what I just wrote: you wipe your sorry christian ass with Matth. 7:1. Moreover you judge my character by your own! Excellent, Agabu.

        • Agabu

          Even more self-congratulation about one’s own awesomeness, quoting a Bible verse to boot. You’re spending too much time looking into that mirror on the wall, praising the awesomeness of the image staring back at you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Spoiiiing!

        • Greg G.

          You seem to be reading Matthew 7:1 as if it says, “Judge, so that you may not be judged.”

        • Agabu

          Not really. You’re assuming I;m reading it that way, and imposing that assumption on me. I didn’t quote the passage. Mnb did. It wasn’t really a thought in my mind.

        • Greg G.

          You were judging. You were either reading it that way or ignoring it.

        • MNb

          The second time you tell the same joke it’s not funny anymore, Agabu.

        • Greg G.

          The problem with all so-called ex-Christians is they weren’t really Christians to begin with.

          Oh, the bullshit Christians must tell themselves to maintain their fragile beliefs! All I wanted when I was a Christian was to serve the Lord.

          A true Christian, always Christ-centred.

          There can be no such thing as a true Christian if the teachings and beliefs are false.

        • Agabu

          I’ve given a hearing to all your criticism here about Christianity. You know what? It is all a load of crap filled with nothing but whining and complaining. My faith in Christ is as strong as ever built on proven historical realities. Your beliefs were fragile. You gave up. You sold out Christ and abandoned Him for selfish reasons. You may window dress it however way you like with nonsense about no evidence or God not answering my prayer for faith. You and every so-called ex-Christian are self-righteous sell outs, who when dealing with Christians glory in using invective, insults and/or name-calling. There’s a lot of such immoral-speak here as the responses around this one can testify. Your world revolves around you. Christianity must meet YOUR criteria. If you really wanted to serve the Lord, you would have served Him. You would have asked Him to meet your needs at HIS discretion and made up excuses about it not being true. You left because you wanted to. You never had any real love for Him except for yourself. Good riddance I say. The Faith doesn’t need people like you. It needs people who wholeheartedly love Jesus Christ. What do I get out of my faith in Christ? The company of a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises. Everything else is gravy.

        • Greg G.

          Ha ha ha! I thought the same way when I was a Christian. I couldn’t imagine not believing anymore, either.

          I did not leave for selfish reasons, that is for sure.

          You must tell yourself those things to fight off those nagging doubts you have.

        • MR

          Yeah, sounds like you might have touched a nerve from that last response of his. My goodness, methinks the lady dost protest to much.

          What I like about the “you were never a Christian response” is that it slams the door in the face of anyone who has ever seriously struggled with their doubts and exposes the farce of the argument cleanly and unequivocally. We know what we went through.

          If anything, for anyone currently struggling with doubt, it shows that Agabu’s brand of Christianity is false because it negates what they are going through. Yo, doubting lurkers, Agabu says you’re just being selfish. What do you think about that?

        • Agabu

          Unlike you, I can actually imagine not believing anymore. That alternative repels me to high heaven, because of its rank selfishness. It’s not the reason I rather believe what I believe. It just makes me think about the truth and worth of its contrary, so I get on with it because of its truth. I’ve had some doubts here and there in the past at various points in my life. I don’t have them now. O yes, I don’t have any nagging doubts. All I have is gratitude and praise for Jesus Christ the Lord. He is as awesome as they come. Jesus Christ has sustained my trust in Him and proven the truth of His word over and over.

          You abandoned Him and stopped following Him, for, I say it again, selfish reasons. You can window dress those selfish reasons in whatever way you like, being rational, real or whatever. They’re still selfish. Greg wanted to leave, so he did what he wanted, which is, leave it all behind. Selfish people do what they want, when they want and how they want.

        • Greg G.

          Unlike you, I can actually imagine not believing anymore. That alternative repels me to high heaven, because of its rank selfishness.

          That only shows that your imagination is unrealistic.

          They’re still selfish. Greg wanted to leave, so he did what he wanted, which is, leave it all behind. Selfish people do what they want, when they want and how they want.

          Lie to yourself if it makes you feel better. I wanted to continue to believe but could not because it became clear to me that it was not true. If I was selfish, I would still be going to church.

        • Myna

          Unlike you, I can actually imagine not believing anymore.

          Not believe in what…exactly. God? Which one? Yours?

          But actually, you can’t imagine it. Not now, maybe not ever. Who knows.

          That alternative repels me to high heaven, because of its rank selfishness.

          Yes, like those humanitarian Doctors without Borders folk. A secular service to humanity without regard to any creed of those they help. Selfish lot, those. I could name more, but one would think you’d get the point.

          To be honest, I think Christianity is inherently selfish. It wants to live forever while the rest of the world burns. And while it is burning, the Doctors Without Borders will be assisting the injured.

        • Nicely put.

          That makes me think of Mother Teresa helping the poor and desperate go through the crucible of agony on the way to death. “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.”

        • Susan

          “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.”

          And very tellng that she chose the best medical care for herself when she needed it.

        • Greg G.

          Apparently she didn’t think the world would gain much from her suffering.

        • Myna

          Or, the world would not gain much from not watching her suffer for the suffering. Got to keep one’s self healthy for such a mission as that. I must admit to a bit of a melancholy pause after hearing interviews with former sisters (which were remarkably consistent) on how attached MT was to the suffering of those in her charge…indeed, exacerbated it.

        • Myna

          From all that has come to the surface about Mother Theresa, I wonder if she wasn’t projecting. The truth in the statement might well be: “There is something beautiful in seeing me accept my lot in service to the wretchedly poor, to suffer my bitterness like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from my suffering.”

        • Agabu

          Jeez Myna, you know me so well. Here I am thinking I can imagine, and voila, I really can’t. Thanks for doing the thinking for me. You’re some kind of mind reading god. O baby yeah, awesome.

          Good grief! I don’t have my own god. I trust in the only true God. I know very little about doctors without borders. They help sick people. This much I know. That’s good.

          Christianity doesn’t want to live forever while the rest of the world burns. It’s not a person. It’s a worldview after all. It’s got people that subscribe to it that are involved in all sorts of humanitarian efforts. With a Christ at its core who commands not only to love God but also to love one’s neighbour as one’s self, accusing it of selfishness just plain silly and ignorant. Thankfully, it’s just what YOU think not what it’s really all about. Once again, there’s the YOU at the center of it all. Jeez, I wonder what we call the all about me crowd. I leave that for you to figure out.

        • Myna

          you know me so well

          Listen to you, hypocrite. You just got done telling Greg G. why people left Christianity. You read minds. I read minds. Cool, huh?

          I think you are still drunk.

        • MNb

          “I don’t have my own god. I trust in the only true God.”
          This is not a contradiction. You call your own god “the only true God”.

          “With a Christ at its core who commands not only to love God but also to love one’s neighbour as one’s self, accusing it of selfishness just plain silly and ignorant.”
          Given the content of your comments you fail at following “Christ” on this blog in this respect. Of course this is covered by the “we all are sinners” doctrine.
          Or perhaps you love yourself so little that you’re incapable of loving your neighbours. Given the several times you violated Matth. 7:1 that would not be a bad guess. You tell us.

        • adam

          ” I can actually imagine not believing anymore. That alternative repels me to high heaven, because of its rank selfishness.”

          As opposed to the Ultimate in Selfishness:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

        • Agabu

          I gotta say, you post is hilarious. I’ll leave it at that.

        • Myna

          It’s good to laugh at yourself, Agabu.

        • MNb

          Unfortunately for you it also totally applies to you.

        • adam

          Well at least you can laugh at yourself and your imaginary “God”…..

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d94b69ca2ceddec48f4fa8526d226ee4a2bfb104489864928b81bd0661307052.jpg

        • Myna
        • Ignorant Amos

          The arsehole has fulfilled his obligation under the 23rd Psalm so by now you’d think he’d fuck off to pastures new.

        • You and every so-called ex-Christian are self-righteous sell outs

          That’s your argument? I would’ve expected you to encourage people, Christians included, to follow the facts where they lead.

          If you’re a leader in a church, I cringe when I imagine someone confiding their doubts in you.

        • Susan

          built on proven historical realities.

          Gosh. That’s not a phrase you hear historians use, generally. What criteria do you use to determine what a “proven historical reality” is?

          You gave up. You sold out Christ and abandoned Him for selfish reasons.

          You have no idea what anyone’s reasoning is. You assume that people’s inability to buy snake oil is due to a flaw in their character without checking or showing your work.

          I have no reason to believe your claims. Give me one.

          Phrases like “proven historical realities” doesn’t help your case, at all.

          A Scientologist would use the same strategy as would a KKK member. When someone walks away from ridiculous claims, they are labelled traitors and quitters.

          There’s no reason to buy your snake oil. If I hadn’t been indoctrinated at a young age, I never would have taken it seriously at all.

          It’s because I took it so seriously that I find it so contemptible and your poo-flinging in lieu of an argument so laughable.

        • Myna

          Being a Christian to the whole lot of them was about getting something out of it

          Oh, Please. Cut the crap, Agabu. You get something out of your belief, and the key word is belief. Belief is not fact, it is an assumption. You do not believe in your religion without some psychological benefit attached to it, as attested to with this: And that has changed more lives, and kept them strong and true in the faith than self focused efforts to keep the faith.

          It’s all about your own self-focus on the mantra of keeping the faith. “Christ Centered” is all about you. Your lengthy and defensive diatribe just now, from the first word Sure to the last word faith, reeks of your own ego and betrays your self-absorptions.

          Greg G. is right. It is all bullshit that religionists must tell themselves. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t have felt compelled to write the sorry self-centered value judgement ramble you just did.

        • Agabu

          And you know what I get out of it? The company of a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises. Everything else is gravy. Your response simply reveals someone angry for no good reason. All this whining about me, puts you at the center, Selfishness is your bedfellow. The only antidote: Christ-centredness.

        • Myna

          Do you even read what you, yourself, write? You said: “Being a Christian to the whole lot of them was about getting something out of it,”, and now you say Jesus makes good company and “makes good on his promises.” You are blinded to the dust in your own eye.

          To equate criticism of your fixed ideas with whining is simply another manipulation you use in your argument and denotes a genuine lack of insight. You are not a biblical scholar or anything close to it. This is made obvious by your refusal to acknowledge issues in text and failure to recognize known information, which is what serious scholars of any discipline allow whether they are an advocate of the particular subject or not.

          All this whining about me, puts you at the center, Selfishness is your bedfellow.

          Another trick of yours to bounce off criticism. Accuse the opposition of what you are displaying yourself.

          The only antidote: Christ-centredness.

          This is simply not true, because everyone knows the only antidote is Krishna consciousness.

        • Agabu

          Another angry outburst to the man rather than his arguments. You want to criticize my “fixed ideas?” Criticize away. I got no problem with that. I’ll cozily sit back while enjoying a fruit smoothie without dropping a sweat or losing my cool. At the the end of the day, your criticisms are too flimsy to displace Jesus Christ from His rightful place as Lord of all. Myna is all about Myna. I don’t care about me. You can call whatever you like. Jesus Christ is the real deal. That’s what I care about.

        • Myna

          I would respond, but you make no sense relative to my comment. Are you inebriated?

        • a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises.

          Like what? Surely not like the over-the-top promises for prayer made in the NT.

        • MR

          That I’ve seen, Christ couldn’t deliver a pizza, let alone deliver on a promise. Untestable claims are worthless. You can count on Dominos better than you can on the imaginary Lord and Savior. Maybe Agabu could prove me wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well Domino’s founder and one time owner, Tom Monaghan, is a conservative RC fuckwit reputed to be a member of Opus Dei so Ag’s would claim divine intervention even there I’d imagine.

          In 1989, the National Organization for Women (NOW) called for a boycott of Domino’s because of his active opposition to abortion, but it is unclear what effect, if any, that had on the company’s sales.

          I think I read somewhere that Monaghan is a young earth creotard too.

        • MR

          Ah, interesting. And I just avoided them because I didn’t care for the pizza. Now I have another reason.

        • Greg G.

          And you know what I get out of it? The company of a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises. Everything else is gravy.

          If that were true, you would be selfish. If not, you are delusional.

        • MR

          a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises.

          That seems to me to be a testable claim. Do you think Agabu is up to the challenge?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do you think Agabu is up to the challenge?

          Nope.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And you know what I get out of it? The company of a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises.

          That’s nice. Bully for you. How’s that panning out for everyone though?

          http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/tebow-kids.jpg

          Everything else is gravy.

          And that is what makes you an offensive douchebag.

          Your response simply reveals someone angry for no good reason.

          Oh I think there’s plenty reason enough to be angry at apologetic wankers the likes of you.

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/53/af/e0/53afe0743eb5cbb08df99b2031486cff.jpg

          All this whining about me, puts you at the center, Selfishness is your bedfellow.

          Ha-haa-ha-haha-haa? Your a scream, ah’ll give ya that Agabu.

          The only antidote: Christ-centredness.

          Which one?

        • adam

          ” The company of a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d3e7cc5c876f33fef8545f1ef4c50ace73577c1c67cfea297c0c1e7a7766f642.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Jesus was nailed to a cross.
          Thor has a hammer.
          Just sayin’…

        • Michael Neville

          To misquote Darth Vader: “The Smug is strong in this one.”

          The problem with all so-called ex-Christians is they weren’t really Christians to begin with.

          This is the fallacy called “No True Scotsman”. You unilaterally dismiss our previous beliefs because it makes you feel superior to us. Since you have no idea about how strongly and fervently we believed in Jesus then you can’t make this statement.

          No wonder your faith left you, it was misplaced and exposed to be not even in Christ Himself at all, but in your own wishes or dreams or some tailor made belief system.

          One of the things that annoys most atheists is when a theist tells us how and why we became atheists. Here’s a thought, why don’t you ask us why we left Christianity instead of telling us why we did so? You’ll seem like less of an arrogant, sanctimonious jerk that way.

          In the end, your disappointments and frustrations with what you alleged to be objectively false claims skewed your perspective to the point of it not really being objective after all.

          Despite your sneers, in my case I left Christianity because I examined it objectively and found it lacking in evidence to support its many claims. I was objective and my objectivity forced me to reach a conclusion that you don’t like.

          I won’t respond to the rest of your comment because you’re not arguing with us, you’re preaching. We’ve heard and refuted your points too many times to bother with your pompous, priggish sneers.

        • Agabu

          I’ve given a hearing to all your criticism here about Christianity. You know what? It is what is all a load of crap filled with nothing but whining and complaining. My faith in Christ is as strong as ever built on well-evidenced historical realities. Your beliefs were fragile. You gave up. You sold out Christ and abandoned Him for selfish reasons. You may window dress it however way you like with nonsense about it lacking in evidence.

          You and every so-called ex-Christian are self-righteous sell outs, who when dealing with Christians glory in using invective, insults and/or name-calling. Your world revolves around you. Christianity must meet YOUR criteria. You objective? Not at all! You reached the conclusion your heart really wanted. You never had any real love for Jesus Christ except for yourself. Good riddance I say. The Faith doesn’t need people like you. It needs people who wholeheartedly love Jesus Christ. What do I get out of my faith in Christ? The company of a Lord and Saviour who makes good on His promises. Everything else is gravy.

          Now bring on the insults and name-calling and angry rhetoric. Let’s have us who you really are.

        • Michael Neville

          Your smug, self-righteous sanctimony just shines through everything you write. You’re convinced, with no justification, that you’re morally superior to atheists because we don’t accept your particular beliefs in your particular deity. You make completely unwarranted assumptions about our “fragile beliefs” based on nothing except your animus towards atheists.

          You and every so-called ex-Christian are self-righteous sell outs

          You’ve decided that every ex-Christian was never a Christian because apparently if one drinks the kool-ade then it stays down or was never consumed at all. It’s already been pointed out to you that No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy but you haven’t understood how your claim is fallacious.

          who when dealing with Christians glory in using invective, insults and/or name-calling.

          You came here (we didn’t search you out, you came of your own choice) and insulted Bob with your very first post two months ago. You don’t argue with us but with the atheist who lives solely in your head. You refuse to consider that we rejected your beliefs after careful, conscientious examination of them. You don’t even accept that we’re sincere in our lack of belief. You’ve been arrogant, smug and pompous in every post. So it should not be surprising that you get invective and name calling. “A man reaps what he sows.” Gal 6:7 (NIV)

        • Michael Neville

          Your world revolves around you. Christianity must meet YOUR criteria. You objective? Not at all! You reached the conclusion your heart really wanted. You never had any real love for Jesus Christ except for yourself.

          I’ve just realized the difference between you and me. You grasp Christianity for emotional reasons while I rejected it for intellectual reasons. You’re attracted to Christianity for its sentimental, passionate appeal and, I suspect, you think this allure should attract everyone exposed to it. Since atheists (and other non-Christians) aren’t attracted to Christianity, you assume that we never were attracted.

          I won’t go into how I first started questioning Christianity (specifically Catholicism, I was raised as a Catholic). I spent years of diligent study, extensive reading, discussions with various clerics and other religious teachers, meditation, deliberation, and prayer. I determined that Catholicism, Christianity, and theism in general had no intellectual support. There was no connection between gods and reality and I preferred reality to imagination. So I had no choice but to become an atheist.

        • Myna

          A good insight with the emotional v. intellectual component. An emotional attachment becomes extremely personalized, which accounts for Agabu’s internalized reactions, whereas an intellectual response leaves more room for detachment…as in why doesn’t the square fit into the circle?

        • Agabu

          My, my, O my! More self-congratulation about how “I questioned Christianity, I spent years of diligent study; I determined it had no intellectual support; I preferred reality to imagination; I had no choice but to become an atheist.” I…. I…. I! With you, it’s just you, you, you. Your world revolves around you as stated before. You did what you wanted to do for selfish reasons. That’s the thing with selfishness, it’s often intellectually satisfying because you’re the center of your world. Everything must meet YOUR standards. Doing as you see fit in your own eyes? It all just makes good sense and too good to pass up. Who needs God, when I can go my own way?.

          The difference between you and me is my life is Christ-centred and your life is you centred. One of those is selfish. Guess which one.

        • Michael Neville

          Since I don’t center my life around a figment of somebody else’s imagination you declare me selfish. Since a figment of somebody else’s imagination is more important to you than yourself, your family, your friends and every other human, I consider you to be neurotic.

          Who needs God, when I can go my own way?.

          No, you incredibly delusional prig, the question isn’t “who needs gods?”, the question is “do gods exist?” When the answer is “not only no but fuck no” then the need for gods disappears. There’s the further point that I have family, friends, a job and all the other paraphernalia involved in being human. I just don’t have gods to encumber my life.

          One thing that you haven’t realized about atheists is that not only don’t we believe in gods, we see no need to believe in gods. We make our own lives as best we can. Being subservient to a figment of somebody else’s imagination is just plain silly. Maybe one day you’ll realize this but I doubt it. You get too much satisfaction out of feeling superior to everyone who doesn’t believe in your personal delusion for you to ever accept reality.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Maybe one day you’ll realize this but I doubt it.

          Well plenty of a lot more intellectual folk than Agabu, that were more fastened to the teat of the Kool-Aid cow, have released their grip and realised the whole shebang is a lot of nonsense fuckwittery. So never say never.

        • Agabu

          You “don’t have gods to encumber” your life. You “see no need to believe in gods.” You “make” your “lives as best” you can.

          After all the bluster, insults and name-calling that you’ve turned into an art form, still self-centred. Angry outbursts directed at the person rather than behaviour always come from minds crippled by the hobgoblin of selfishness.

        • MNb

          “still self-centered”
          Still stupid. Smart people like MN recognize that they need other people – often called loved ones and friends – ot “make their lives the best they can”. Frankly I think it rather sad that you need an imaginary sky daddy to enable you to love other people. We atheists don’t.

          “Angry outbursts directed at the person rather than behaviour always come from minds crippled by the hobgoblin of selfishness.”
          If this is correct and given your two two outbursts directed against me (self-congratulation and other tripe) your brand of christianity has done nothing to cure you from that selfishness.
          It’s entertaining to read how successful you are at discrediting yourself.

        • Myna

          It’s entertaining to read how successful you are at discrediting yourself.

          Successful, indeed.

        • Agabu

          Outbursts you say. They’ve been none whatsoever. Just simple observations of the facts on the table. I don’t need an imaginary sky daddy to love other people. Imaginary things are of no use to me. It’s great they’re of no use to you either. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Sky daddies are a figment of someone’s imagination. Just not Christians.

          I have given my life to the only true God. That, my friend, is the one who gives me the insight to love like He loves as He showed in Christ laying down His life for me. Not only that, but He also gives me the strength to do it with wisdom and grace even as I am aware of my imperfections and shortcomings.

        • Myna

          Thought you said there was nothing in it for you, Agabu. You said people always want something, but not you. Yet, in nearly every comment you make, you talk about what you are getting out of it.

        • MNb

          “They’ve been none whatsoever.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          The first bits of the Sermon on the Mount is really not for you, is it?
          Matth. 7:3, dear Agabu, Matth. 7:3.

          “the one who gives me the insight to love”
          If this is correct the world is better off without your “only true God”, because your insight in this respect on this blog is exactly zero.

        • epeeist

          The first bits of the Sermon on the Mount is really not for you, is it?

          Wait, there is more to the Sermon on the Mount than the beatitudes? Who knew?

        • MNb

          The Sermon on the Mount is outdated in places (what else would we expect after 2000 years?) but does have some good stuff. I find it amusing how many apologists on this blog, to say it friendly, neglect that good stuff.

        • epeeist

          I find it amusing how many apologists on this blog, to say it friendly, neglect that good stuff.

          My point was that theists only tend to quote the beatitudes, they tend to avoid the bits where you commit adultery by looking at a woman or risk hell by calling people fools.

        • MNb

          Ah, sorry, I didn’t get your point.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t see many one-eyed, one-handed Christians around, either.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Thought crime…the worst of the worst.

        • Michael Neville

          My favorite comment about prayer, Matt 6:5-6, is part of the Sermon on the Mount.

        • Myna

          Next to Matt 7:1, it’s got to be the most ignored passage in the sermon.

        • epeeist

          My favorite comment about prayer, Matt 6:5-6, is part of the Sermon on the Mount

          Well yes. Just like everything else the Sermon on the Mount gets cherry picked. A bit like my children picking all the good chocolates out of a box and leaving the orange and raspberry creams.

        • MNb

          We atheists are justified to cherry pick from the Bible, because we don’t assume it’s infallible.

        • Greg G.

          The orange creams are better than nothing. Can’t say the same about the raspberry creams.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “A bit like my children picking all the good chocolates out of a box and leaving the orange and raspberry creams.”

          A hellfire-worthy-offense, if ever there was one.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The orange one is the story of Lot one for me, which is your not favourite?

        • Agabu

          You really seem obsessed with Matthew 7:3 amigo for someone who hates the Bible. What’s its application in this situation?

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          But I don’t hate the Bible at all. For one thing Revelation never fails to make me laugh; excellent absurdist humour.
          As for Jesus – he said some stuff I think excellent, he said some badly outdated hence irrelevant stuff and said and did some stuff I strongly disapprove of. That’s exactly what I would expect from a somewhat literate, not exactly original guy who lived 2000 years ago.
          Matth. 7:1-3 contains things I wholeheartedly agree with.
          That’s not the point of course – typical for a dishonest christian like you that you try to change the subject.
          You demonstrate on this blog that you fail to practice what Jesus preached. As you’re not exactly the only one the conclusion is that Jesus’ mission on Earth was a failure. Christianity doesn’t contribute anything anymore to make our world a better place. That’s totally consistent with the conclusion that christianity’s focus on afterlife makes a lot of christians selfish – and you are an excellent example of this conclusion.
          Exactly that is the beam in your own eye. And you refuse even trying to see it, failed christian.

        • Greg G.

          You are obsessed with a “Christ-centred life” but you dismiss the words of Jesus that would require you to not be so selfish, yet you judge others with a beam in your eye.

        • Myna

          Well, amigo, what accredited seminary did you attend to ask what is applicable in this situation? Careful now, Jesus is watching.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m not sure admitting to having attended a seminary, accredited or not, will give Agabu any credence. Woo woo is woo woo, wasting time achieving credentials in it is not necessarily a good argument.

        • Myna

          I agree, but with Agabu’s persistent claim that he has some greater degree of insight and reasoning in interpreting biblical texts than anyone else, even to the point of calling Greg G. pathetic because he provided a counter argument Agabu didn’t agree with, and then arguing with Bob S. that he was justified in saying it, I figured he should give evidence to some greater scholasticism. Of course I knew he could not provide it…not with Jesus watching and all…but I was tired enough of his self-aggrandizement antics to call him on it.

        • I knew he could not provide it…not with Jesus watching and all

          It takes him about twice as long to pee every time, what with Jesus watching and all.

        • Myna

          Ha! It makes you wonder if that might not be true. Jesus paranoia or something. (Hopefully, Jesus won’t ask him to Jump! at that moment.)

        • Greg G.

          I think he was implying that his greater degree of insight is his imaginary revelation thing.

        • Myna

          Yes, I think you are right about that. I confess to an impulse to commit a bit of trollery against his grandiosity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And why not?

          What’s good for the goose and all that jazz.

          Agabu is well past his “best before date” anyway.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …but I was tired enough of his self-aggrandizing antics to call him on it.

          And he doesn’t even realise it. He has come here, as many do and have before, with what he really believes is an epiphany inducing message. He just can’t accept that the message is way past stale already and the mold is forming.

          He believes he has a particular expertise on a subject for which he hasn’t. A subject that even the answers are suspect a ever changing.

          “The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?” ~ Dawkins

          I don’t need a doctorate in Fairyism to know that belief in Fairies is just plain daft.

        • Michael Neville

          Okay, let’s say, arguendo, that I’m self-centered because I don’t accept your favorite deity. So what? Explain how that’s a bad thing.

          There’s the further point that if you want me to center my life around your god that first you have to give evidence that your god exists. Because I’m pretty sure that Jesus, as promulgated by Christians, doesn’t exist. I’m willing to accept that during the first third of the 1st Century an itinerant preacher named Yeshua ben Yosef was giving revivals in Palestine. But I sincerely doubt that the Jesus of the Bible, let alone Jesus as interpreted for over two thousand years by various clerics, theologians, ecclesiastics and other assorted religious riff-raff, all with varying agendas, opinions and prejudices, ever existed.

        • Agabu

          Arguendo, you called me? I like that.

          Anywho. I don’t have a favourite deity. I just worship the only true God. I didn’t make Him up. Why is selfishness such a bad thing? Because it makes you the most important person over anyone else. You can tell me you have family and friends that matter to you, but how you relate to them becomes a pragmatic matter determined by the value YOU place on them according to YOU and for YOU.

          Christ turns all that upside down, and everything becomes a gift to us from someone who is greater than us who is only too pleased to give us all things to enjoy for our benefit and for His glory and delight. Our family and friends, for instance, become a privilege and a trust we love and care for with praise and gratitude to the one who blessed us with them, who if we abuse or mistreat will call us to account.

        • Michael Neville

          “Arguendo” is means “let’s consider something for the sake of argument”.

          Jesus is your favorite deity. There are other deities, all as fictitious as your pet god is.

          Because it makes you the most important person over anyone else.

          How you decided that I think I’m the most important person over anyone else says a lot more about you than it does about me. If you didn’t “love” your favorite illusion then you’d consider yourself the center of the universe and you’re projecting this to me. As it happens, I do not think I’m more important than anyone or everyone else. Sorry to burst your bubble, you incredibly self-centered egotist.

          You still don’t understand that I don’t believe in your god. And I certainly don’t think your god gives us things for our benefit. What did your Jesus give to this girl?

          https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iOVFs3KcqP4/V2SJc1PpeLI/AAAAAAAAKZE/MsQcmlFa3yI9TgJPSq3ANZ_qK5NN7lfJwCLcB/s1600/The%2Bvulture%2Band%2Bthe%2Blittle%2Bgirl.jpg

        • Agabu

          I didn’t decide you were the most important person in your life over anyone else. YOU decided YOU were all that you needed to live YOUR life, no gods needed. This is the only “incredibly self-centred egotism” that should baffle and maybe even alarm you.

          So you don’t want to believe in the only true God. that’s YOUR choice as you did way back when, when YOU decided to forsake Christ in the name of your new “god” called, “Reason.” As regards to the girl in the picture, I can’t say anything about her since I don’t know her or her story or why things are the way they are in her life. But I do know one thing, Jesus gave her life and breath, and all her pain and suffering is known to Him. My heart bleeds for her, and I pray the good Lord sends loving and caring people to her to bring her health and healing; She has value, dignity and personal worth because God made her in His image.

        • Kodie

          Even you don’t live with the help of god. You don’t have any idea how powerful your imagination is. Anyway, we all need other people, even you, but you sound like the kind of guy who needs to supplement with an imaginary friend because you’re loud, obnoxious, judgmental, and boring. The more you talk about atheists and atheism, the more wrong you sound. You can go back to being wrong about the existence of god or your relationship with Jesus, but you don’t have superiority here. You sound like a fucking lunatic.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Whadaya mean sounds like a lunatic?

        • Michael Neville

          Why should discarding an illusion “baffle and maybe even alarm” me? I realize that you’re so wrapped up in your imaginary god that you won’t understand what I’m going to say but getting rid of illusions is actually good for you. It’s healthy to not believe in imaginary beings. You don’t believe in leprechauns and fairies, I don’t believe in equally imaginary gods. I didn’t “forsake” Christ, I came to the realization that he didn’t exist, just like Allah, Vishnu, Wotan and Huitzilopotchli don’t exist.

          As regards to the girl in the picture, I can’t say anything about her since I don’t know her or her story or why things are the way they are in her life.

          That girl is dying of starvation. Do you see the bird in the picture? It’s a vulture. They’re scavengers, eating recently dead animals. The vulture is waiting for the girl to finish dying so it won’t starve.

          But I do know one thing, Jesus gave her life and breath, and all her pain and suffering is known to Him. My heart bleeds for her, and I pray the good Lord sends loving and caring people to her to bring her health and healing; She has value, dignity and personal worth because God made her in His image.

          That’s all very sentimental but your Jesus did fuckall to save that girl’s life. So it’s obvious that your pretense that Jesus sent love to that girl is bullshit. Your Jesus, if he exists, let that girl die a miserable death which took weeks to happen. So the next time you “thank Jesus” for helping you find your car keys, remember that girl. She suffered a whole lot more than you ever have but Jesus did nothing for her.

        • Agabu

          O cut the pretentious moralizing, self-righteousness and phony baloney indignation. You don’t know the girl. What her life story is or how things panned out from that moment on in the picture. Your selfishness is really on full display here. Using a moment of suffering of a young girl just to score points or some sorta gotcha against God. You should be ashamed of yourself.

        • Susan

          Using a moment of suffering of a young girl just to score points or some sorta gotcha against God.

          This is a sickening display of how breathtakingly cold-blooded theism can get.

          A moment? A single moment? Some sort of gotcha?

          You should be ashamed of yourself.

          Amazing.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Myna

          O cut the pretentious moralizing, self-righteousness and phony baloney indignation.

          No comment could match the hypocrisy in that statement.

          You don’t know the girl. What her life story is or how things panned out from that moment on in the picture.

          You didn’t even friggin’ know the photograph was taken in 1993 or the circumstances surrounding it. The child was by herself, likely the lone survivor of dead parents, siblings and/or caretakers who either died in some crossfire, of disease or starvation. The girl was on the brink of death from starvation and disease when the photograph was taken.

          Do you have any idea how long it would take for her to recover from that? All efforts to locate her failed, and she is presumed to have died since it would not have been that difficult to find her if she had been under the care of any medical professionals, which she would need to have been in order to have survived.

          Using a moment of suffering of a young girl just to score points or some sorta gotcha against God.

          No comment could match the idiocy in that statement.

        • Michael Neville

          I know the girl’s story, you insensitive, sanctimonious hypocrite.

        • MNb

          Perhaps MN should be ashamed, but not for being wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are the one that should be ashamed of yourself. Trying to defend the indefensible ya arsewipe.

          http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/health_and_science/feed_the_world/2014/04/140415_FEED_EthiopiaFamine.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

        • Kodie

          You, as a Christian, are confronted with reality, and your choice is to pray to a figment of your imagination to feed her before it’s too late.

        • Agabu

          My choice in the moment when I saw her picture was to pray for her for the only true God to send tangible and appropriate help to meet her needs. There are channels that others are better placed for to get help to her and anyone like her in similar circumstances. I pray for God to use people like that to help. I don’t make silly wishes or spout vain hopes or indulge in delusions of grandeur about what ought or ought not to happen. let alone complain about what God didn’t do or should have done. That sort of thing is for arm chair critics like yourself who’ve got nothing better to do than use the pain and suffering of others as some kind of point or zing against God. Now answer me this Kodie: In view of your cushy life compared to her, your choice is to do for her what exactly?

        • Myna

          What you don’t see in the photograph is the photographer surrounded by militia guards, which accompanied the journalists and photographers wherever they went and prevented them from any interference with the victims of the famine, mostly due to the spread of disease.

          There are channels that others are better placed for to get help to her and anyone like her in similar circumstances. I pray for God to use people like that to help.

          Cut the crap. Why don’t you pray for your own service to be used. There are places right where you live where you can volunteer your services and/or travel to those places and be of that service, as Paul B. Lot graciously pointed out to you. Don’t assume others here haven’t been to wretched places on this planet in service to humanity, or those who may live on the brink of those places still. Never assume that, Agabu.

          That sort of thing is for arm chair critics like yourself who’ve got nothing better to do than use the pain and suffering of others as some kind of point or zing against God.

          And for armchair pray-ers like you. You just don’t get it. You just don’t. You’re just wasting everybody’s time.

          My choice in the moment when I saw her picture was to pray for her for the only true God to send tangible and appropriate help to meet her needs

          That tiny girl likely died over 20 years ago. All efforts to find her failed. There’s no choice left. Looks like your armchair prayers were a bit too late. If you knew anything about the world you live in, you’d have been aware of the famine then even as it is on the rise again due to warring factions.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • pray for her for the only true God to send tangible and appropriate help to meet her needs.

          Yeah, I bet that helped a lot. Prayer has such a great track record for helping people.

          You pray for something to happen and then you feel better. Your anxiety because of bad shit in the world is dissipated … which does what to actually get something done?

          Reminds me of this tweet by Ricky Gervais:

          “@MTVNews: Beyonce, Rihanna & Katy Perry send prayers to #Oklahoma #PrayForOklahoma” I feel like an idiot now … I only sent money.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “When I was a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised, the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn’t work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.” ~ Emo Phillips

        • Kodie

          There are channels? Human channels. You pray to a useless invisible and imaginary 3rd party that other people who are closer and more capable will use their material world to help other people in need. There is no need for god in this situation. Yes, I criticize you, because you are praying to god to use people to overcome a situation you simultaneously avoid acknowledging that he creates and allows. You people and your sorrow and grief. You people with your “everything happens for a reason”, then why interfere, why appeal to god to change things he made happen for his own reasons? Oh, it shouldn’t be like that?

          I’m only a human being, but you pray to god for him to undo what you believe he has done, for his reasons, because you feel bad that you can’t do anything else. You are affected, and nothing left for you but useless prayer. People die every day in such conditions, with no relief. A slight human effort may save some of them – physically, I mean food, water, medicine, and shelter. You live in the fantasy of some afterlife. You live in fantasy that you can talk to the air, and this will somehow have an effect somewhere else in the world for people suffering unimaginably. God could but god does not. If god depends on people to pray for him to send a handful of people who can do nothing but take pictures, because it’s too late. I mean, if you believe there’s a god who cares, why does he need you to ask him to look over those people and send a handful of other people to help.

          There is nothing BUT people. Your prayers are not heard or answered. Not all problems are solved, but zero problems are solved by god or prayer. If god wanted to do something, and if he needed people to do it for him because he’s so fucking impotent, he ought to be sending armies of aid. Millions of people be sent bolt upright to get on a plane with food and medicine and assist those people into wellness and creating a healthy working society like we have. Don’t tell me I’m too comfortable to give a shit. Don’t tell me god can’t solve problems without recruiting basically the weakest shittiest people like yourself to lecture us about our own selfishness and anguish and whatever ugly ideas you have about atheism. You are displaying your ugly side, but you don’t know shit about me. You are making guesses, making judgments, and pretending to be a better person. Your ugly side shows me you depend on praying to god, but you are satisfied with his work on you, and you are not satisfied with his work on diseased, starving 3rd world citizens, the best god can do is wait for agabu to write him a note asking him please feed the girl before it’s too late. Please! My heart hurts for her! And he didn’t.

          And you are judging me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I feel the old “God is not a cosmic vending machine” trope coming from Ag’s next.

        • adam

          ” There are channels that others are better placed for to get help to her and anyone like her in similar circumstances. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c740f0b7fb4ab5d74464bc7c7da4a86e9d1508798e6e801d271b2436492b869b.jpg

        • Paul B. Lot

          “My heart bleeds for her… She has value, dignity and personal worth because God made her in His image…”

          I don’t believe you.

          “…I pray the good Lord sends loving and caring people to her to bring her health and healing…”

          He did. He sent you.

          Unfortunately you were too busy trolling people smarter than you on the internet for self-gratification.

          Just another example of how dumb your imaginary friend is.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just another example of how dumb your imaginary friend is.

          Leads by example by the looks of things.

        • Agabu

          Believe whatever you like Paul. Your heartlessness and foolishness in using the pain and suffering of a young girl you don’t know to heap vile insult on someone you call my “imaginary friend” is really on full display here. If my friend is “imaginary,” what are you so worked up about? If you’re smarter than me, what steps have you taken to help the girl? The moral pretensions of “no God-thinking” are as stupid as they come.

        • Myna

          What are you even doing here? What is the purpose? Define this purpose, if you would, please.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think you called it already with የሚያስቅ አህያ trolling.

        • what are you so worked up about?

          You’re making a claim, and we’re evaluating it. You propose an all-good god who eats popcorn while watching innocent people starve to death.

          Your claim fails.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If my friend is “imaginary,” what are you so worked up about?

          Whaaaa?

          I’m gonna got out on a limb here and suggest that at least part of the reason is because, like me, Paul is angry because religious fuckwits like you can’t keep your religious fuckwittery to yourselves. Instead you endeavour to shove it down others throats at every opportunity.

          Greta Christina has list a few of the reasons at her blog, perhaps you might avail yourself of a few of them before asking STUPID FUCKING QUESTIONS…ya clown.

          http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

        • adam

          “YOU decided YOU were all that you needed to live YOUR life, no gods needed. ”

          Based on the millions upon millions of gods claimed and trillions and trillions of God claims all found evidenceless and unsupported by people just like YOU. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a29efcba0ee94d4f84d4a43b6bc78a04d7180523d05f7132222fdad4c7046acd.jpg

          You know, just how YOU’VE chosen to live your adult life without Santa.

        • Myna

          As regards to the girl in the picture, I can’t say anything about her since I don’t know her or her story or why things are the way they are in her life.

          The photograph was taken by South African photographer Kevin Carter and won the Pulitzer prize in 1993 for its stark presentation of famine in the Sudan. Because of the rampant disease, he was prevented in helping her to reach the food center she was crawling to and it is unknown if she ever made it. He was only able to chase the vulture away.

          Kevin died in 1994 at the age of 33, unable to bear the weight of his own impoverishment and depression over the despair and political oppression of humanity he had witnessed, which he wrote haunted him day and night.

        • Agabu

          Thanks for the lil bit of info. It is a harrowing and heartbreaking moment.

        • Myna

          Troll.

        • adam

          “So you don’t want to believe in the only true God.”

          Merely demonstrate that YOUR “only true God”, is anything but IMAGINARY.

          I want to believe.

        • MNb

          Ha! Gotcha! If you truly wanted to believe you would not ask for such a demonstration. You would start to cherry pick the evidence and arguments that seem to confirm your belief.

        • adam

          If only my rational mind worked that way.

        • Kodie

          I don’t recognize the atheist you are describing.

        • Agabu

          Of course not. You need to stop looking in that mirror of yours, and for a moment stop marveling at how awesome that image staring back at you is, so you can recognize everything else better.

        • Kodie

          You’re projecting. Nobody here is more in love with themselves than you are.

        • Myna

          Agabu has got projection-obsession bad!!!!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Extremely bad.

        • Greg G.

          Our family and friends, for instance, become a privilege and a trust we love and care for with praise and gratitude to the one who blessed us with them, who if we abuse or mistreat will call us to account.

          That sounds selfish, you cherry-picker.

          Luke 14:26 (NRSV)26 “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

        • Agabu

          O Greg, you continue to crack me up. Everybody cherry-picks Bible verses. The trick is knowing how to do it right. You on the other hand aren’t very good at cherry-picking Bible verses. The selfish bug has really smitten you. Jesus isn’t telling us to abuse or mistreat our family members, let alone to “hate them with malice aforethought.” Jesus is using vivid hyperbole, meaning that one must love Jesus even more than one’s immediate family. This is about putting Jesus before anything or anyone else. This doesn’t negate our duties and responsibilities to them.

          In the end, you know what’s really selfish. Resolving to be the one who gets to decide what anyone’s really worth to YOU. In other words, YOU getting to play God.

        • Myna

          Everybody cherry-picks Bible verses. The trick is knowing how to do it right.

          That’s thug talk.

          What accredited seminary was it you attended again? Enquiring minds want to know.

        • Agabu

          You seem really obsessed with my seminary credentials. What does it matter? What difference does it make? Here you are huddling around the non seminarian nor credentialed historian Siedensticker’s largely speculative musings about biblical Christianity.

        • Kodie

          Seminary is just a bullshit factory.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yip…Coco the Clown school for Coco the Clowns.

        • Myna

          We’re talking about YOU and your claim to know the reasonable interpretation of texts. We’ve had visitors here who HAVE attended seminary and although one might not agree with their position, it is clear they are educated in biblical scholarship. Now, I won’t accuse you of not having a rudimentary lay familiarity, but your attitude of infallibility in interpreting text reeks of self-aggrandizement, not to mention self-deception and a lack of mature scholarship.

          If you are going to insist you have some learned insight into biblical text, to the point where you call others pathetic (which an accredited individual, or even a serious lay scholar, would not do), then provide your credentials. You don’t have the credentials, Agabu, so cut the crap about having some deeper insight. You don’t, as is evidenced by both your attitude and your interactions…and your interpretations.

          You seem really obsessed with my seminary credentials. What does it matter? What difference does it make?

          Translation: I don’t have any.

          It’s your attitude that matters, Agabu. You set yourself up for mockery and then whine when you receive it.

          And you never did answer my question to you about Judaeus Philo. Remember, without his doctrine of Logos there would be little foundation for Christianity, yet the scholar never mentioned Jesus nor was apparently even curious enough to inquire about alleged events taking place in his own time…especially given he had an interest in Jewish sects. Why is that, do you think?

        • Agabu

          O my. Clearly you haven’t really been reading my back and forth with Greg. As for my seminary education, I’ll leave you hanging on that one. Make of it whatever you will.

        • Myna

          Oh stop being so stupid. Troll.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He can’t help himself…its part of the package that is his belief system.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Okay, but you are being asked what makes your position any more tenable than anyone elses, I.e. why should you be taken seriously over some fuckwit like Pat Robertson or that eejit Phelps or the Pope or Joseph Smith, get it? So quit with the fuckin’ whataboutery already, ya dopey Clampett.

        • Greg G.

          So, you feel safe ignoring Jesus’ words and claiming the hard verses don’t apply to you. Ha ha ha! You are selfish.

        • Agabu

          You really are determined to prove me selfish. That noose is already around your throat. Greg left Christ for selfish reasons. There’s no getting around that amigo. I didn’t ignore anything Christ said. You said that. I already gave an interpretation and how it applies to someone like me.

        • Kodie

          There actually is no Christ to get away from, only the bear trap of the powerful illusion that he is the center of your whole life. Some people can think about it – you are afraid to even tempt it.

        • Greg G.

          You do whatever you want. If the Bible supports it, you proudly quote it. If there is a verse that says the opposite of what you want, you tell Jesus he was talking to somebody else. You are the kind of person that Paul called “the brother of the Lord” because you make choices for your god.

        • Agabu

          Not at all. We call that correctly handling the word of truth. There’s been no avoiding anything the Bible says. I’ve given reasoned responses to most Bible verses you’ve brought up. You cut and paste Bible verses to suit your “no God” agenda without regard for context, culture and historical setting.

        • Myna

          The verses are used to illustrate a point, Agabu, not to just make up interpretations. Why are you here?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not at all. We call that correctly handling the word of truth.

          Because you believe that, doesn’t make it so.

          There’s been no avoiding anything the Bible says. I’ve given reasoned responses to most Bible verses you’ve brought up.

          “Because I say so, therefore I’m right” is not a reasoned response.

          You cut and paste Bible verses to suit your “no God” “Christian” agenda without regard for context, culture and historical setting.

          Fixed that for ya. The Christian cult and its scriptures are constructed from many a “cut & paste” job ffs. Which still continues.

        • Greg G.

          We call that correctly handling the word of truth.

          How can that be the correct method when it yields 45,000 different understandings among believers?

          It’s no wonder you have given up. You have been shown that your interpretations do not add up.

        • Ignorant Amos

          How can that be the correct method when it yields 45,000 different understandings among believers?

          Because in Agabu’s myopic outlook, 44,999 of those understandings is wrong. They must be, due to the fact that he is in the cult that has got it right.

        • epeeist

          They must be, due to the fact that he is in the cult that has got it right.

          Time to drag this one out again:

          https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KvUyrmwcjek/UE9K7Mhob9I/AAAAAAAADV4/zORgJZ_H05c/s1600/TomsDoubts14.jpeg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, but it needs to be dusted down and “dragged” out periodically, or should a say, when the occasion merits it….and anyway, it never gets jaded.

        • MNb

          “The trick is knowing how to do it right.”
          And the right way to do it of course by definition is your way.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course…I think Agabu suffers from the Affective Fallacy or the Intentional Fallacy…probably both.

        • Paul B. Lot

          http://lmgtfy.com/?q=arguendo

          “how you relate to them becomes a pragmatic matter determined by the value YOU place on them according to YOU and for YOU”

          Wildly mistaken.

          I do not directly control how my brain reacts to family/friends/loved ones/good things.

          “who if we abuse or mistreat will call us to account”

          I don’t need your cowardly god to help me hold myself to account – my brain and my social connections do that for me.

        • Agabu

          What do you know, someone trying to directly control how I should think about these things using their directly uncontrolled “brain and social connections”.

          It would seem we have a mindless drone whose directly uncontrolled “brain and social connections” do the thinking for him. Go figure. Since you’ve checked your mind in the parking lot, I’ll wait for you to go find it. The “brain and social connections” you don’t directly control are just not making any sense.

        • Kodie

          You didn’t have a very tight grip of reality to begin with, but now you’re definitely losing it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Away with the fairies in my opinion…others may differ of course.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “What do you know, someone trying to directly control how I should think”

          Wrong again, @signposts05:disqus. (Does it ever get old to you? Being inept, I mean.)

          I am not interested in attempting to exert “control” over you. I am aware that I have none, owing to:
          a) the medium itself (internet) and the nature of us both being peers and guests on Bob’s blog

          and

          b) the fact that I have no expectation that you will cease being as dumb/trolly as you’ve been heretofore long enough to grasp the arguments being made.

          I don’t correct you hoping to cause a change in you. I correct you because centuries upon centuries of rational adults trying to work things out together have netted us a roughly-agreed-upon set of rules of evidence and argumentation. Understanding and using those rules takes both individual practice and societal involvement, forms of intellectual exercise. Correcting you is simply an opportunity to work those mental muscles.

          I don’t do it for your benefit but for mine and others’.

          “using their directly uncontrolled”

          This phrase doesn’t seem to be meaningful, as far as I can tell.

          I mean…I know, I know; you were trying to be cute and clever in playing off my statement: “I do not directly control”.

          But, my dear, cute or clever you are neither.

        • Agabu

          And what exactly are you trying to correct in this debate/discussion about the doctrine of the Trinity?

        • adam

          “It would seem we have a mindless drone whose directly uncontrolled “brain and social connections” do the thinking for him.”

          Yes, we do have such a mindless drone:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          What a dumb ignorant asshat you are Agabu…not much else to be said about your fuckwittery.

        • Agabu

          Coming from you, tis but an ironic compliment.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well at least you can see and admit to the truth content of my comment that’s a start.

          As Myna would say, you are a silly ass.

        • adam

          ” I don’t have a favourite deity. I just worship the only true God. ”

          Of the MILLIONS of gods, you obviously have a favorite…

        • Agabu

          That would be true if I created the God of the Bible, But i didn’t. So no points for you.

        • Michael Neville

          Some Iron Age Hebrew priests created the Biblical god. Paul invented Jesus who’s been improved, upgraded, modified, revised, corrected and otherwise developed over the centuries by various people, all with different agendas. Why do you think there are 45,000 different Christian churches, each one saying all the others are wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not too sure about the “Paul invents” bit, but the rest seems about right.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          I had a premonition you would post that graphic in reply to that comment.

        • Myna

          It’s such a classic. Timeless in its precision. A diamond.

        • adam

          I preyed that someone would….

        • Greg G.

          Which proves that you have the faith of a mustard seed.

        • MNb

          “Because it makes you the most important person over anyone else.”
          Which is exactly what you do when praying to your imaginary friends. When you pray your family and friends are not a privilege and trust; they are second rate. At best.

        • adam

          “Christ turns all that upside down, and everything becomes a gift to us from someone who is greater than us who is only too pleased to give us all things to enjoy for our benefit and for His glory and delight. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae1afb4336eb43eac4eb6542320889b4c9068fa20364f91b3a3a3b8f6e3a0f88.png

        • Greg G.

          You are selfish because you are not a Muslim. You don’t want to formally pray five times a day.

        • Agabu

          Bringing in Muslims now? How desperate are you? So Muslims pray five times a day. Big deal. Christians are admonished to pray without ceasing, fervently, every day as often as possible. Our lives are to be focused on Jesus and not on ourselves. Your life is focused on you. And what do we call those people whose lives revolve around them? O yeah, selfish.

        • Myna

          Christians are admonished to pray without ceasing, fervently, every day as often as possible.

          Pfffft. Hindus are in a constant state of Krishna consciousness. No often as possible about it. Always constant. Never ceasing. Buddhists are in a constant state of mindfulness. No often as possible about it. Always constant. Never ceasing. You Christians got to catch up.

        • Agabu

          What Hindus or Buddhists do is there business. We Christians gotta engage the world we live in without pretending it doesn’t exist. Whatever we do whether work or play or whatever else, it is all to the glory of God. We are called to live while we’re breathing, and not take flight from life.

        • Kodie

          You’re really brainwashed.

        • Greg G.

          They threw the brain out with the bath water.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What brain would that be?

          Agabu is thinking with bath water between his ears it seems.

        • Myna

          Hindus and Buddhists live and breathe and engage in the real world. What’s wrong with you? I’m sorry, where was that accredited seminary you attended again?

        • Michael Neville

          Hindus and Buddhists don’t pretend the world doesn’t exist. You really should learn about what others think and believe before you make silly statements about them.

        • Greg G.

          Christians are admonished to pray without ceasing, fervently, every day as often as possible. Our lives are to be focused on Jesus and not on ourselves.

          “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” –Jesus

          You have selfishly put the cart before the horse.

        • Agabu

          O Greg, O Greg. Selfishness really has you abusing Scripture now? Sorry dude, I’m not the rich young ruler Jesus was talking to with those words. Bible interpretation 101. Know the original intended audience, and then work out how it applies to later demographics. However, I did find the one thing I lacked in my life, Jesus Christ Himself. This is actually Christ’s point in the quote above within the flow of the story. The point isn’t selling everything to give to the poor. The point is following Him at the cost of everything that maybe even near and dear to you. Jesus can’t or shouldn’t play second fiddle to anything in your life. He must be first, even before yourself. This is a lesson I’ve learned very well. Therefore, for Him, I’m prepared to give up anything and everything, even my own life if the need or occasion ever arises. You put the cart before the horse, and forsook him for the things of this world. You’ve window dressed it with fine-sounding jargon like “wanting evidence,” which you actually had in the Scriptures themselves. But you chose YOU over Christ. The result is the selfishness that has since characterized your “spiritual journey.” You’re on the wide road dude. And you already know where Jesus says that leads. Sooner or later we all breathe our last, and lo and behold, Jesus is waiting on the other side as our judge.

        • Paul B. Lot

          This is a lesson I’ve learned very well. Therefore, for Him, I’m prepared to give up anything and everythin g, even my own life if the need or occasion ever arises.

          What if….

          What if you’re so bad at logical thought/writing that the result of your contributions here is that we, and others reading our exchanges, are pushed further away from your Christ?

          Do you love Him enough to stop drawing attention to how much you love Him?

          Do you have the strength and depth of Faith to pray to your Father in secret, to show your love of Christ by quiet example, rather than bombastic, inept ramblings?

          Will your love of God trump your love of self?

          I doubt it.

          Ah well, another True Christian™ bites the dust.

        • Agabu

          Explain how one shows Christ’s love by quiet example in the comments section on a blog….

          Should my responses be left blank or something with my name on it?

          I think those “brain and social connections,” are better left in the parking lot. Bring your mind instead, it thinks better at least.

        • Myna

          Explain how one shows Christ’s love by quiet example in the comments section on a blog….

          Perhaps answer questions clearly. Take critique. Don’t get your knickers in a twist about opposition. Don’t call others pathetic because their insights differ from yours. Don’t set your beliefs up for mockery by insisting your interpretation is infallible (it isn’t). Don’t say one thing and present the opposite. Be honest. Know when to admit you don’t know something or you might be wrong. Know when it’s time to let it go.

          [Edited]

        • MNb

          “Should my responses be left blank or something with my name on it?”
          The quality of your responses would indeed improve.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Explain how one shows Christ’s love by quiet example in the comments section on a blog….”

          Well, it’s certainly not easy – even for the best of them. But you’re not the best of them. You’re not even in the top 25%. You’re out classed, but you don’t really seem to understand that fact – and so you take it as an unjust personal insult when you’re told so, rather than as the blunt truth that it is.

          Your not winning any arguments here and, worse by your standards, you’re turning all of us off more and more with each whiny, cringe-worthy, scrabbling attempt at dominance you will never achieve.

          Maybe if you were as dim as you are, but you had a soul full of unconditional compassion, if you were unfailingly polite and humble, if you were truly a servant to all….maybe then you would win Souls for Christ™ by being here.

          But you are not those things. I’m torn between categorizing you as a [pure troll], pretending to be an idiot narcissist christian, or simply an actual [idiot narcissist christian].

          I suppose Occam tells me I should choose the latter, but I’m not fully convinced yet.

          “Should my responses be left blank or something with my name on it?”

          If you were* actually a deeply misguided christian, who wishes to be better than she or he is currently, and if you were legitimately asking for input, I think I would counsel two things:

          1) Spend more time meditating/praying. You seem to me to be deeply disconnected from any realistic sense of your own internal motivations. You should get to know yourself better! On your view (I imagine) you are a Child of God, and so your flaws only mask the inner truth of your beautiful nature. You don’t need to be afraid to look closely at yourself. You are made in God’s Image, and however bad you have been acting here (or elsewhere) is less important than that most important fact. The hard truths about your inadequacies are worth meeting head-on in order to arrive at that beautiful truth.

          2) As the oft-misattributed quote goes:

          “Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid”

          The fact, and it is a fact, that you are not a good online apologist does not mean that you do not have a calling somewhere else. Perhaps you should look to unbasket-your-christ-light there? Aren’t there sick or lonely or old or dying people by you who could use comfort? No prisons full of dejected, harassed, lost souls? I mean, there are plenty of third world countries full of people who could no doubt use the skills that you have to offer….but if you don’t feel like leaving the US (I presume?)….there are homeless people all over the place.

          Many of them are veterans of our armed services, people who put their lives on the line in service to you and the rest of us.

          The fact that you don’t have the skills to be effective here doesn’t mean that you couldn’t be effectively showing “Christ’s love” elsewhere.

          * Even if you aren’t, I find writing this worthwhile as an excerise. See here.

          (Edits for trying up loose thoughts.)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Many of them are veterans of our armed services, people who put their lives on the line in service to you and the rest of us.

          Haven’t those folk endured enough fer fuck sake?

        • adam

          ” Bring your mind instead, it thinks better at least.”

          Look, you’ve brought yours and you leave it unused except for the imagination part.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e6eceefda06b08605b3653301b5e246ee7fbd6ce2a594a4e6a0d18e41ce10f5.jpg

        • Myna

          Bible interpretation 101

          There’s no such seminar, is there? What was the name of that accredited seminary again?

        • Greg G.

          Your Christ-centered life is based on the Bible passages you selfishly choose to follow. That rich young ruler didn’t even have a computer. He didn’t have a car, a TV, a radio, an air conditioner. He probably had less than you.

        • Agabu

          That would only be possible if my life wasn’t Christ-centered. So the rich young ruler didn’t have modern luxuries. He lived then in the 1st Century AD. I live now in the 21st Century. The challenge for him as it is for you and me and everyone else remains the same: If Christ is the center of your life, you’re not. When He’s not, YOU are the center of your life. That sort of thing has played itself out in my life every now and then. You left Christ behind. YOU live for you, and the things of this world which will pass away. Believe on the Lord again Greg, while you still have time. Remember your first love. Remember His love in Christ. Remember the joy His word stirred in the depths of your soul. Remember, remember.

        • Myna

          Yea, but then he’d be like you!!!! A raving, and I suspect inebriated, lunatic. God forbid!

        • Greg G.

          Well, maybe I will when my mind falters completely.

        • Agabu

          Oh Greg. Please remember. Return to the Lord my friend.

        • Greg G.

          Oh Agabu. Please learn critical thinking. Return to reality my friend.

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          Believe on the Lord again Greg, while you still have time.

          What’s going to happen if Greg or I don’t “believe” in your god? Is it the lake of fire? Will your “all-loving” god punish us for not kissing his ass in this life?

        • Agabu

          You’ll be banished from the extraordinary joy of His presence and its wondrous pleasures, and be consigned to the place of everlasting punishment, where you’ll get exactly what YOU wanted in this life: a life without the beauty of God’s company. In that state is the experience of anguish, contempt, shame, sorrow and unimaginable torments.

          I don’t say this with any glee or pleasure. I plead with you to reconsider my friends. Call on God the Father and His Christ again to save you from the coming wrath of God against all sin(evil) and everyone it holds in its grip as their lord and master.

        • At least preface this unwanted preaching with an acknowledgement that anybody from any other religion could give just as compelling a, “Yeah, but mine is correct, and it’ll be fabulous, but you’re not doing it right!!”

        • Michael Neville

          So your god will punish me forever for not believing in him? Sounds more like an abusive parent than a loving father. A god that narcissistic, that sadistic doesn’t deserve my belief. It certainly doesn’t say much about you that you follow a megalomaniac bully of a god.

          I don’t say this with any glee or pleasure.

          That’s an obvious lie. You take great pleasure in knowing that people who don’t “believe” in your asshole of a god will be punished. In almost every post you’ve been showing how superior you feel to us atheists you’re preaching at. Knowing we’ll be punished for not following your dictates is just another example of your arrogant, haughty superiority over us.

          There’s one last thing you’re ignoring. I can’t force myself to believe. I either believe or I don’t and there’s actually no choice in the matter. For reasons that you reject, probably because you don’t understand them, I’ve come to the conclusion that your god doesn’t exist. It would be a pretense on my part to drop my reasonable conclusion and fake belief in something I know isn’t real.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s one last thing you’re ignoring. I can’t force myself to believe. I either believe or I don’t and there’s actually no choice in the matter. For reasons that you reject, probably because you don’t understand them, I’ve come to the conclusion that your god doesn’t exist. It would be a pretense on my part to drop my reasonable conclusion and fake belief in something I know isn’t real.

          But at least you’d be doing right by Blaise Pascal, so every cloud has a silver lining don’t ya know?

        • MNb

          “In that state is the experience of anguish, contempt, shame, sorrow and unimaginable torments.”
          That’s not what I want – you’re mind reading again.
          What I want is neither this nor “the beauty of God’s company”. Beauty is subjective and I think “God’s company” ugly, especially if it’s your god whose company I will have to suffer and on top of it if you’re going to be in that company as well. Sharing “the beauty of God’s company” with someone like you for me equals the experience of anguish, contempt, shame, sorrow and unimaginable torments – because indeed I can’t imagine the torment that would be.
          What I want is returning to nothingness.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Now you are not even trying to hide your asinine preaching.

          No one is buying your pish, stuff, and nonsense Ag’s, give it up ya simpleton.

          The Muslims, among others, are laughing at ya…ya eejit.

        • Kodie

          I’m sorry you can’t cope with the real world.

          I don’t say this with any pleasure or glee. You are under the grips of a frightening delusion that has been holding you prisoner for as long as you have believed it. Your delusion has no powers over me. What you describe isn’t real. It does not frighten me. It does not describe me or my life. It’s like you don’t even understand, you live inside of a bubble of misinformation, threats, abuse, insecurity, etc. You promise something you can’t even deliver, something you’re obviously in no position to gain or share, and you are so worried about the horrors of atheism, that you can’t even escape your abuser.

        • adam

          “You’ll be banished from the extraordinary joy of His presence and its wondrous pleasures, and be consigned to the place of everlasting punishment, ”

          And Santa will bring you a lump of coal.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/474299198fa468cb412454dc5c43a24444b671b390af392fb7d2e088f0031e1d.jpg

        • busterggi

          I wonder how one can be banished from the presence of an omnipresent deity. I guess the same way there is no sign of him here on Earth.

        • adam

          ” Call on God the Father and His Christ again to save you from the coming wrath of God against all sin(evil)”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

          What a CRUEL monster…

        • MNb

          “Your life is focused on you.”
          Repeating your lie only makes you look worse.
          Greg G’s life is focused on quite a few people he calls his loved ones.
          At the other hand, all the time you waste on praying you don’t even think of your loved ones. You only think of your personal relationship with a guy who has been dead since almost 2000 years.
          How do we call those people who think their personal relationship with an imaginary friend more important (because only their own well being matters to them) than their relationships with their loved ones (and their well being)? O yeah, selfish.
          You excel at undermining your own position, Agabu.

        • Kodie

          You’re also making your life as best you can, with your crutch. You can say you really need it, but you can’t say it’s real, and you can’t say we all really need what you need. You’re talking about yourself, you are self-centered. You are dependent. You are a child.

        • Agabu

          Yes, yes, and yes. Jesus is my crutch. I totally need Him, and so do you. When I was blind, He got me seeing. When I was deaf, He got me hearing. When I was lame, He got me walking. When I was lost, He found me. O what a Saviour. Hallelujah! I am utterly dependent on Him. I am indeed a child, His. Self=centred you say my dear? Hardly. He is the center of my life. The one in the drivers seat. When He says, “Jump,” I say, “How high?” It’s not about me. It’s all about Him. Rock on sweet Jesus, rock on.

        • Must be great to have someone else think for you. I’m tempted to join you.

          But I’m a little perplexed–I have a Muslim friend who says (also without evidence) that his religion is actually the correct one. Maybe I’ll just flip a coin.

        • Myna

          Do you ever listen to yourself? Jesus doesn’t tell you to jump, Agabu. And if you are hearing voices telling you to jump, well, it ain’t Jesus who is talking to you.

        • Agabu

          A little emotional? Yes, Uncontrollable? Not so much. You trying to think for me, priceless!

        • Myna

          You are always falling off the track. Not being one of them, YOU wrote an entire epistle on how ex-Christians think. Now, that’s priceless.

          BTW, what was that accredited seminary you attended again?

        • Paul B. Lot

          1) “Hysterics” doesn’t necessarily mean “uncontrollable”.

          hys·ter·ic
          hiˈsterik/Submit
          noun
          plural noun: hysterics
          1.
          informal
          a wildly emotional and exaggerated reaction.

          2) Building on #1: your beliefs seem very carefully controlled indeed; you indulge in them as an emotional drug.

          The words and concepts themselves are inert, but when you allow your brain to run them as code, when your conscious mind allows their contents to be simulated; your organs trigger the release of hormones which are intoxicating.

          You get to feel the intensity of the deepest emotional lows, and then, quick-snap, you get to enjoy the brain-state-shift to the highest emotional highs.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuO37yZQnT8&feature=youtu.be&t=48

          Just like any American couch-potato living vicariously through “Surivor” or “American Idol” or “Judge Judy” or “Honey Boo Boo” – you enjoy getting caught up in the emotional roller-coaster of a fabricated situation.

          You’re an addict to the endorphins of your own meat-processor, nothing more.

          Not that there’s anything wrong with that, by the way – it’s what we all are. Adults who expect to be taken seriously, however, should be aware of it.

        • Agabu

          Another attempt at psychoanalysis. I wish I could get into this with you, but I’ll let you know when I want to lay on a couch for you to mumble on about what ails me psychologically. In the mean time, I’m good.

        • Myna

          የሚያስቅ አህያ

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bingo!

        • MNb

          Still you’re blind, deaf, lame and lost.
          It’s all about Jesus you say – still you only write about him related to yourself, not to anyone else.
          Indeed, self-centered, with Jesus as your fig leaf.

        • Agabu

          Jesus says otherwise. I’ll take His word for it over yours. You’re too hang up on yourself Narcissus.

        • Myna

          Jesus doesn’t say otherwise, Agabu. All you’ve done is write about Jesus in relation to yourself. Go back and read what you write. It’s all about Agabu. Narcissus, indeed.

        • Agabu

          All I’ve done is write about Jesus and how that’s made a difference in my life. Your obsession with trying to think for me continues.

        • Myna

          Hey, I can’t help it that you’re so easily translatable.

        • adam

          “Jesus says otherwise. I’ll take His word for it over yours. ”

          But you dont:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

        • adam

          “When He says, “Jump,” I say, “How high?” It’s not about me. It’s all about Him.”

          But you dont:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/07a6a722eb459b5d8ad76ecf5ad8d04dd5ba3484e6faaa0abf14e05e1ce8575e.jpg

        • Agabu

          Says the man without an argument. What exactly is your point here?

        • adam

          “What exactly is your point here?”

          That you werent being honest when you said:

          ” It’s not about me. It’s all about Him.”

          It is ALL about you….

        • Kodie

          It doesn’t bother you that you depend so much on something that doesn’t exist?

        • Agabu

          It would if He didn’t exist. Come to think of it, I wouldn’t even believe it in the first place if He actually didn’t exist. But I accept that you believe He doesn’t exist. I’m sure it’s a fantasy that helps you a bit to sleep soundly at night.

        • MR

          I’m curious. Why do you believe he exists?

        • Kodie

          Then you shouldn’t believe it. But you do. You are a victim of the great power of suggestion. You fear an atheism you created in your mind so much that you cling to whatever helps you through, even if it is an illusion. The question is – why are you bothering us with your crazy talk? We don’t care. You’re not an example of how to be a good person, a humble person, a rational person, or, for whatever anecdotal-type phrase, a “healed” person. You’re not an example of who to be. You’re not an example of how Jesus makes you better or how Jesus made you better. You are an example of how powerful the imagination can be if it makes up fears that are worse than the illusion they cling to.

          So, why is it important to you to defend your beliefs to us and argue us out of ours? We are not any more convinced, and honestly, ever less and less convinced with every arrogant Christian who comes along professing to have “the answer”. You have a delusion. It works for you. You can insist that it’s real, but you don’t have any evidence. We don’t even have your personal testimony. We don’t know what a piece of shit you were before, or what kind of slightly less embarrassed piece of shit you are now as though that’s some kind of improvement via the magical wishes that there’s a Jesus Christ who loves you. We’re not seeing anything to aspire to in you. You had a low self-esteem and got saved by the magical power of suggestion to think you are better. We know how that works, it is not actually magical and entirely psychological and social in nature. Jesus is just one self-help method, but there’s too much baggage. You assume we’re rotten without Jesus because YOU were rotten without Jesus, or you’re made to feel as though you used to be so rotten. Nobody gives any credence to your judgments either. You are just a delusional theist who thinks up ways to keep convinced out of fear of turning into someone you don’t like… what the fuck that has to do with us is another lie your religious beliefs tell you.

          DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND YET?

        • Ignorant Amos

          DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND YET?

          Doubt it very much….will he ever?

        • Agabu

          Oh, I understand that you’re really upset. You can unload all the invective and attempt at psychoanalysis on me you like, if it makes you feel better. I’m cool, and not anything you imagine me to be. I don’t think of myself as better or superior to anyone here. My point still stands though, I accept that you believe that Jesus is make-believe. This is your fantasy. Jesus Christ however is a real historical figure, that lived, died and rose again from the dead.

        • Kodie

          You sound like you have nothing left to talk about, then?

        • epeeist

          You are an example of how powerful the imagination can be if it makes up fears that are worse than the illusion they cling to

          And, as this article shows how much less likely is he to understand the world.

        • adam

          “I wouldn’t even believe it in the first place if He actually didn’t exist.”

          And neither would children believe in Santa Claus….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/102697e7faecdc67306ad919c76a1e01e698f44fbed89fa96dcc85012ac3ce5f.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          You don’t want a god, you want a dominating mother. Some of us are capable of going through life without a god or a mommy ordering us to jump to their tune. But you have shown, once again, that the appeal Jesus has for you is purely emotional.

        • Greg G.

          Everything must meet YOUR standards.

          Does Christianity meet your standards? Did you have to lower your intellectual standards to maintain your emotion-based beliefs?

          If you lower your standards, you can believe any religion.

        • Agabu

          I don’t have any standards Christianity must meet. I examined it on its terms. The problem is when one lowers one’s standards, it isn’t that you’ll believe any religion. You will hold to no religion, no gods. Your standards are lower than even the most superstitious folk. Because at least even they link their superstition to something meaningful. The “no God” crowd is almost always too high up on themselves, thinking everyone else is intellectually handicapped and douches but them. That’s why they’re aren’t anything other than a tiny minority in every society the world over.

        • MNb

          “thinking everyone else is intellectually handicapped and douches but them.”
          Excellent example of one lie leading to a worse lie.

          “That’s why they’re aren’t anything other than a tiny minority in every society the world over.”
          The majority (to spell it out for you: over 50%) of the Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and Czechs are unbelievers. But in a twisted mind like yours over 50% might still be a tiny minority of course.
          I’ve deliberately omitted Japan, China and South-Korea because belief in East-Asia doesn’t mean the same as in Europe.

        • Agabu

          Of course, you had to run to minimally populated Western European countries to boost your numbers. You just had to avoid, Africa, Central Asia, Central America, Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, Australia and the Pacific Rim and of course, South America. God forbid those numbers wont seem so inflated anymore. But hey, whatever rocks your we got the numbers boat.

        • Europe is largely atheist. America is (slowly) following.

          Or maybe I misunderstood your argument. Are you making a bandwagon appeal? Yes, Christianity is #1; must it then be true? If so, I expect you to switch over to Islam when it takes over that position late this century, if you’re still around.

          http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/files/2015/05/Religious-composition-of-US-Pew-Research.jpg

        • Agabu

          No bandwagon appeals here. Just dismissing the notion that Atheism’s alleged “huge numbers” is an exaggeration. The simple fact is worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group. A comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.The religiously unaffiliated population includes atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion in surveys. However, many of the religiously unaffiliated do hold religious or spiritual beliefs. For example, various surveys have found that belief in God or a higher power is shared by 7% of unaffiliated Chinese adults, 30% of unaffiliated French adults and 68% of unaffiliated U.S. adults. This makes the demographics of atheism very difficult to pin down. As such studies on the matter have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world’s population. Nowhere near the alleged bigger numbers.

        • Myna

          What it shows is that people hold spiritual beliefs. They may be atheistic to your beliefs, however, and that would be the bottom line about your arguments for Christianity, specifically.

        • adam

          “Just dismissing the notion that Atheism’s alleged “huge numbers” is an exaggeration. ”

          The only thing that Atheism alleges is that people like you cant demonstrate that your “God” is anything but IMAGINARY…
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05cafdf4e54d70a9410dfd45f846304eb9891592e53b7561d59d1be03b899362.jpg

        • Greg G.

          But the huge numbers of theists disagree about the deities. They can’t all be right, most are necessarily wrong, and there is nothing that indicates that any are correct. It just goes to show that humans have a tendency to be wrong about gods. You should resist that tendency.

        • The simple fact is worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group.

          There’s a lot of that going around. The simple fact is worldwide, more than eight in ten people say that your beliefs are wrong, too.

          The incredible rise of the Nones is the U.S. religion story of the decade.

          As such studies on the matter have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world’s population. Nowhere near the alleged bigger numbers.

          What “alleged bigger numbers”? I accept what the reliable studies conclude. The truth is fine with me; I don’t need exaggerated facts.

        • Myna

          Eastern Europe is down to 4% in religious affiliation in some countries like Estonia, with the Czech Republic being the least religious country in Europe.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Czech_Republic )

          The number of people reporting “no religion” in Australia has risen in the past 100 years from one in 250 people to one in five. Christianity lost its spot as the majority response in New Zealand’s census, with the number of people opting for the “no religion” choice jumping from 35 per cent to 42 per cent.

          http://www.news.com.au/national/faith-in-the-spotlight-as-australians-tipped-to-lose-their-religion/news-story/0b9626b05bf1ee796bf5700bc7d99193

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Anything to avoid admitting that you were just factually wrong.
          You are the one who cares about numbers, because that’s about the only “argument” (the Ad Populum is a logical fallacy too) that’s factually correct, if correctly formulated – even that you failed to do.
          Plus I not only mentioned European countries, so you’re a liar.
          Plus Czechia is not a Western European country, so you’re topographically impaired as well.
          You know what one of the best reasons is to not convert? Avoiding to become as sad a character as you – or Jack Chick, who died recently.

        • Agabu

          Says the guy who actually brought up the numbers game And then continues trying to boost them. Hmmm……

        • MNb

          And very predictably our foolish entertainer has become a liar.
          You brought up that game.
          Here.

          “a tiny minority”
          Minorities and majorities are all about numbers.
          As this is such an easy one that even someone whose intellectual skills have been impaired by badly outdated beliefs like you should have noticed it my conclusion is that you’re more than a liar: a stupid liar.
          Of course I don’t rule out that you lie to yourself as well. Obviously self-deceit only makes your case worse. That’s what your imaginary sky daddy has made you do: believing your own stupid lies.
          You have almost reached the bottom, Agabu.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A was nearly tempted to get into the number’s game, but it didn’t seem worth the effort in the end.

          Even if every fucker on the planet believed Agabu’s particular flavour of ballix…still wouldn’t make it necessarily correct. Something that cretin struggles with.

        • MNb

          “More self-congratulation”
          Do you get a hard on from using this word or something?

          “Everything must meet YOUR standards.”
          No silly, I’m not nearly smart enough to develop and formulate MY standards. I’ve taken them over from other people. Some of them were christians.

        • Agabu

          Hell yeah! Bwahahaha!

        • Myna
        • Agabu

          Jesus gets me through. My God, what a man! King of kings and Lord of lords. Awesome!

        • Myna

          Like I said, whatever gets you through, Agabu.

        • Myna

          Guess which one.

          Let me guess!! Yours is! If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t get so agitated.

        • Susan

          More self-congratulation about how “I questioned Christianity, I spent years of diligent study; I determined it had no intellectual support; I preferred reality to imagination; I had no choice but to become an atheist.”

          The article questions Christianity. The article shows its lack of intellectual support. The article demonstrates a study of Christian claims.

          Bob S. uses “I” (first person singular) once, as far as I can see, when he says “I get it.”

          And quotes passages of people claiming Jesus saying it twice.

          You are pathetic.

          People don’t believe your crap because it doesn’t add up. You are unable to make it add up so you accuse those people of being self-absorbed without a bit of evidence to support that accusation.

          You have purchased a bunker full of snake oil and are pissed off that we are not interested in buying any of it.

          It’s snake oil. I am not a narcissist because I won’t buy it. Give me a legitimate reason to buy it and I’ll consider it.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Susan

          I’ve given a hearing to all of your criticism about Christianity.

          And you have yet to do anything to address those criticisms. You continue to shift the burden.

          filled with whining and complaining

          Nope. There have been countless requests for you to do something other than make assertions. You haven’t yet.

          You and every so-called ex-Christian are self-righteous sell outs, who when dealing with Christians glory in using invective, insults and/or name-calling.

          I’m an ex-christian and I’ve asked you repeatedly to define and support your claims. So far, you’ve been either unwilling or unable.

          You’d rather fling poo at people and take offense. Why not respond to my request to define and support your claims?

          Let’s bring on the insults and name-calling and empty rhetoric.

          Irony meters aren’t cheap, you know.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          + ∞

        • Kodie

          You’re basically saying the self-help method you have chosen won’t work if you can’t ignore that it’s fictional, right? If you throw yourself into the roleplay, it might help you cope, it might help you do the things and act the ways most likely to sustain and improve your life in a positive trajectory, but you’re also claiming that without it, Greg G., the apostate, should be a heap of tears and hopelessness. That’s another lie you like to spread around. Greg G. and many others here can’t ignore the absolute load of crap this story is, and manage to be ok, and ok people to be around. You’re maintaining that it is a virtue to cling to a fictional story, and that so long as you don’t reflect upon it too closely, it won’t lose its mystique and power over your life. So what? I mean, you are holding up the virtue of not using your brain and of being dependent like a child.

          Yes, that is what it takes to stick with Christianity; no, it’s still not true.

        • Agabu

          You’re saying all this. And it is what is really crap. What it takes to stick with Christianity? Trusting in a Christ whose story is well-evidenced in the world of real history.

        • Kodie

          Ok, but if living in denial is your way, go for it. Don’t expect to convince anyone who has examined it objectively.

        • Agabu

          Living in denial is your way. Denial of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. What else is new?

        • a Christ whose story is well-evidenced in the world of real history.

          What a coincidence–I’m interested in that claim as well.

          My suggestion is that you find a post where I challenge this and respond to it. Show me the errors.

        • Agabu

          Glad to hear that, that is if you really mean it. I’ll look for that post and show you your errors.

        • Here’s a response to Habermas’s minimal facts argument for the resurrection. Or find another if you prefer.

          I’ll look for that post and show you your errors.

          How reassuring and insulting to know that I’m guilty of errors even before you point them out. (That sounds vaguely like a quantum physics paradox.)

          It must be nice being a Christian–you always know what you’re going to think.

        • Myna

          I’ll look for that post and show you your errors.

          What qualifies you to point out errors? You may have your own ideas and opinions, but what actually qualifies you to point out errors? You never did answer where you attended an accredited seminary. Again, your responses do not give a sense of you having attended any formal classes in biblical scholarship for all your wont to instruct others.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which Christ?

          Cynic philosopher? Liberal Pharisee? Charismatic Hasid? Conservative Rabbi? Antinomian Iconoclast? Magician/Exorcist/Faith Healer? Violent Zealot Revolutionary? Nonviolent Pacificist Resister? Apocalyptic Prophet? First-Century Proto-Communist? Early Feminist? Earthy Hedonist? Family Man? Home Wrecker? Savior of the World? Savior of Israel (only)? Radical Social Reformer?

          Will the Real Jesus Please stand up?

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/will-the-real-jesus-please-stand-up/

          The conceptions of Jesus vary wildly, but one thing is for sure: When Christians imagine Jesus, He is largely schizophrenic. He loves me enough to forgive me for sleeping with my girlfriend, but when I fail to have devotional time six days in a row, He’ll likely punish me in some passive-aggressive way, like giving me a cold or making my tire blow out on the freeway. He doesn’t care enough about my prayers to make Aunt Jodie’s cancer go away, but He’ll occasionally answer fervent prayers for a parking spot at the mall so I can make it to the movies on time—because Jesus desperately wants me to see The Dark Knight Rises and not miss the previews.

          There is a reason why there are as many Jesus’s as there are Christian’s…the bloody story allows for them all.

        • Agabu

          There’s only one Jesus my ignorant amigo, the Christ the Son of God. God of God; light from light; true God of true God; begotten not made as to His divine nature, And as to His human nature, born of a virgin, a descendant of David; crucified, dead and buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead; ascended into heaven; and in the mean time sits above all creation as cosmic King who will eventually come to Judge the living and the dead.

        • Myna
        • Dang! That guy could ride anything!

        • Greg G.

          I would not want to be one of Jesus’ rodeo clowns.

        • Myna

          Betcha Agabu would, though. Jump! How high?

        • Greg G.

          Because he isn’t selfish like us.

        • Myna

          Well, as one might say…it wasn’t his first time at the rodeo!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes, yes, yes…I’m aware that YOU believe all that nonsense, but what you believe is not the problem is it?

        • Kodie

          We do realize you’re committed to your fantasy, but none of that is convincing to anyone here but you.

        • Agabu

          Of course, I do realize y’all committed here to treating historic Christianity as fantasy. This activity of imagining the life, death & resurrection of Christ as make-believe is quite a flight of fancy and escape from reason and reality. But hey, at least you’re in a group huddle where you get to sing, “We’re in this fantasy together. This God stuff is such a bother”

        • Paul B. Lot

          You misunderstand quite badly (?intentionally?).

          We are, of course, demonstrably, obviously, and by-definition a “group”.

          That much you got right – and I applaud you for it. (Baby steps.)

          None of us, as far as my experience of the other regular posters here has lead me to believe, are un-moved by evidence or reason.

          We have in fact had many small disagreements amongst each other during the months I’ve watched conversations flow back and forth. Almost invariably, if logic and facts are well-deployed in the context of respectful dialogue, at the very least some sort of congenial “we agree to disagree” is reached. It is not uncommon to read a “sorry” or an “I was mistaken” or a “you are correct” or a “I didn’t think about it that way”.

          In other words, no one who regularly comments here is susceptible to the characterization you have just made.

          No doubt, however, that characterization makes you feel better about your meager abilities, and the attendant poor reception you’ve received.

          You know that you’re a better person/writer/thinker than you’ve been given credit for here, and therefore the fault must be with us. The fault is in our starts/brains/ideas/group-think.

          I’ve seen your type before you showed up, and I will again after you leave. I have your number, and your number is DK.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

        • Myna

          I will ask you what I asked KarlUdy earlier. Why didn’t Philo (20 BCE -40 CE) mention Jesus (6-4 BCE -30-36 CE)? He, who was in the best position to do so. Why was he not even curious, do you think?

        • adam

          ” This activity of imagining the life, death & resurrection of Christ
          as make-believe is quite a flight of fancy and escape from reason and
          reality.”

          No, a lot of fiction is very similar.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8dc416612bbbd6243c461cfe2a6d4ee55f709d3183f0ea3f8770d4d4a294121.jpg

          It is an affront to REALITY to think such stories have a basis in reality.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course, I do realize y’all committed here to treating historic Christianity as fantasy.

          Which one?

          Certainly not the one you follow in any case.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This activity of imagining the life, death & resurrection of Christ as make-believe is quite a flight of fancy and escape from reason and reality.

          Well one out of that trio is definite, the other two are reasonable maybe’s.

          But hey, at least you’re in a group huddle where you get to sing, “We’re in this fantasy together. This God stuff is such a bother”

          Nope, that’s you and your chums every Sunday.

          Here, let me help you understand you lunacy…

          But hey, at least you’re in a group huddle where you get to sing, “We’re in this fantasy together. This Allah
          stuff is such a bother”

          But hey, at least you’re in a group huddle where you get to sing, “We’re in this fantasy together. This Vishnu stuff is such a bother”

          But hey, at least you’re in a group huddle where you get to sing, “We’re in this fantasy together. This God stuff is such a bother”

          But hey, at least you’re in a group huddle where you get to sing, “We’re in this fantasy together. This Xenu stuff is such a bother”

          …and on, and on, and on, and on….see how it works when it is turned around. Ridiculous right?

        • adam

          ” who will eventually come to Judge the living and the dead.”

          2000 years late, Jesus promised this would be in the lifetime of those he was preaching to.

          Just another FAILURE of your Jesus…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e71894366d405a2560c124d806904b75ddf8371641ab58bc4449b6c60b966fb8.jpg

        • Agabu

          No He didn’t. The only FAILURE here is your inability to reason through the Scriptures properly. But hey, pictorial posts often do the thinking for you.

        • adam

          “The only FAILURE here is your inability to reason through the Scriptures properly.”

          Reason? Cant you read?

          Even CS Lewis can READ:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a5b53f4489e73d718f1bf8170a6e17f5961429392c56d208f90d3671f5a3179.png

          “But hey, pictorial posts often do the thinking for you.”

          Too bad the bible doesnt have more pictures, so that YOU can understand it as well.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bbce14a42148cb7935b08d9c8ed885e034ab959153a97ca0c1e9bfd3a95ee7bb.jpg

        • Myna

          Again, I will ask you, Agabu, what accredited seminary did you attend that qualifies you as a biblical scholar to “reason properly” through the texts? It’s not a difficult question, yet you have avoided answering it when asked.

        • adam

          “But hey, pictorial posts often do the thinking for you.”

          No they just often represent my thoughts more effectively than non-pictorial posts.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Paul B. Lot
        • Ignorant Amos

          Agabu doesn’t seem to know that reading the words in the buybull, if one could read and could get ones hands on a buybull in a language to read, was a death sentence at one time.

        • Susan

          Trusting in a Christ whose story is well-evidenced in the world of real history.

          That doesn’t mean anything until you define:

          1)”Christ” (Hint: Don’t use vaguer terminology using more words… this is VERY important)

          2)”Well-evidenced”

          What are your: standards of evidence and what qualifies any claim (hint: not just your claim) as “well-evidenced”?

          3) “the world of real history”

          What on earth is “real history”? Please be specific.

          You’ve been here a very long time now and you never define your terms so that they can be clearly evaluated.

          Whenever anyone gets close to pointing that out, you accuse anyone who doesn’t believe you of character defects and waggle your bum at science, on subjects about which you seem to have no curiosity or knowledge. .

          Why not define your terms and support them instead?

          (Hint: Because this is where things begin to unravel. This is how religion propogates and survives..)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, not so much.

          Are you naturally this stupid or does it take a lot of practice? With less or no bias, yes much.

          Your “no God” presuppositions put you in a less objective position.

          Whaaa?

          Your “yes God” presuppositions put you in a less objective position.

          Would you claim that you are in a more or less objective position to evaluate the religious claims of those Christians you disagree with, or those believers in other gods that you don’t believe in? When you know the reason why the answer is yes, then you’ll have learned something. As it is, you are just being stupid for the sake of it.

          Btw, your “No God” assertion is a strawman.

          Greg doesn’t assert “no God”, he asserts that as an ex-Christian, i.e, a one time believer in a particular god, the one of Christianity, he has the tools to assess the position from more than one angle.

          Most atheists don’t assert “no God”. They claim a lack of belief in ALL gods existence given the lack of convincing evidence for any of them. So, given that the preponderance of evidence for any gods is nil, they live their lives accordingly.

          Ex-Christian? I think that makes you an even less objective critic.

          That’s because you are stupid.

          An ex-Muslim is in a far more knowledgeable position to objectively criticise Islam than the biased Muslim or average non-Muslim.

          An ex-Mormon is in a far more knowledgeable position to objectively criticise the Church of the LDS than the biased Mormon or average non-Mormon.

          An ex-Hindu is in a far more knowledgeable position to objectively criticise Hinduism than the biased Hindu or average non-Hindu.

          An ex-Roman Catholic is in a far more knowledgeable position to objectively criticise Catholicism than the biased Roman Catholic or average non-Roman Catholic.

          It ain’t rocket science and the fact that you don’t recognise the net benefit of having shunned the bias of holding the faith, coupled with having a certain level of knowledge of that faith over an average non-believer of that faith, speaks volumes.

        • Kodie

          I’m so sure you’re not biased because you think it’s true, and subject to the influence of people who do your homework for you.

        • Susan

          There’s just attempts to articulate Christian teaching clearly, concisely and responsibly.

          And claims of victory every time you do it. What criteria do you use to objectively evaluate “clear”, “concise” and “responsbie”?

          The thing is, I’m in a better position to do that as a Christian than you who happens not to be a Christian.

          I’m an ex-christian. The reason I’m an ex=christian is because christianity is a great big load of bollocks. I evaluated its claims and the evidence for those claims.

          Then, learn to accept correction.

          You haven’t demonstrated your qualifications to correct anyone, or provided arguments that would correct anyone.

          You simply make assertions.

        • Greg G.

          Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19. It shows that the verse was altered to make it look Trinitarian.

        • Agabu

          Altered by whom?

        • Greg G.

          Someone who did not live in the century that Matthew was first written.

        • Agabu

          Again, who is this exactly that altered Matthew? Does Eusebius admit this alteration and give us some of the renderings in other manuscripts?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Again, who is this exactly that altered Matthew?

          Seriously? Since when did scribes, who interpolated texts, authorise said interpolations? You are just being a silly pants with such a dopey request.

          Does Eusebius admit this alteration and give us some of the renderings in other manuscripts?

          Nope, but then that ain’t how it works. Which just proves your being stupid.

          Eusebius (260 – 339 CE) was a Roman Christian historian and is regarded as a well learned Christian scholar. He became the Bishop of Caesarea in 314 CE. He quotes many verses in his works, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. 17 times in his works prior to Nicaea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name” without mentioning the Trinity baptism formula.

          Try and learn something will ya?

          What some Christian scholars have to say on the matter.

          Conclusion: A) None of the disciples baptized: “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” B) The formula that is quoted i.e. “Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is never once referenced, not in any of the Gospels nor of Paul’s letters. C) Eusebius (260 – 339 CE) never once mentioned the formula, “Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” instead he only mentioned the name of “Jesus.” D) The Scholars quoted all agree that it was not part of the original text but an interpolation.
          All the evidence quoted by the experts proved that 1 John 5:7 is a fraud, it was added in 1500th century by Erasmus. The words that are quoted by the KJV for 1 John 5:7 is not found in any Greek MSS. All in all the evidence we provided is in our favour that Matthew 28:19 and 1st John 5:7 are not genuine verses. Christians need to let go off the Trinity – Triune God, for Jesus never taught such doctrine. God never said he was a Trinity. The Bible never mentions anything about God being “three.” The Bible never mentions nothing about God referenced as a “Person.” Lastly the Bible never mentions anything about the “Holy Spirit” being God. I will finish off with these verses from Jesus mouth and what God says of himself in the Old Testament.

          https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/26/trinity-the-truth-about-matthew-2819-1-john-57/

        • Greg G.

          No, Eusebius simply quotes the sentence from Matthew 28:19-20a as “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” Why would he leave out the “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” clause?

          Don’t you think asking who altered a verse is rather stupid? If they autographed their interpolation, it would not have been copied.

          There is no evidence that the “baptizing” clause was ever in Matthew before Eusebius’ time, though it may have been inserted somewhere but had not reached Caesarea by then.

          But that clause only lists them as separate entities and doesn’t actually say that they are one. It’s just another case of Trinitarians reading their committee compromise into the text.

        • Agabu

          Eusebius, doesn’t leave out anything, There’s really no reason to think so since no manuscript of Matthew is known that has the short form of the verse. Eusebius’s short form is the only textual evidence for the short reading. He tended to abbreviate biblical passages elsewhere in his writings. and in his Contra Marcellum quotes the long form reading of Matthew 28:19. Therefore, it is more likely that Eusebius summarized the passage, which he could do if he wanted to at his discretion. The clause assigns the same name to all three, thereby making them one. This bolsters the Trinitarian claim, and dismisses your claims as nothing but the product of unfounded anti-Trinitarianism..

        • Greg G.

          the SAME singular NAME to all three

          Nowhere in the KJV or the NIV is there the phrase “in the names of”. However, Deuteronomy 18:20 has the phrase “in the name of other gods” or similar in several translations.

          We can do away with that argument, too.

        • Agabu

          Weak, weak, weak! This is pathetic even for you Greg. Deuteronomy 18:20 being translated “in the name of strange gods” as in the Douay Rheims 1899 Bible hardly makes a case for you. This is a simple warning against idolatry or going after other gods. The use of name in the singular form doesn’t say anything about a pantheon of strange gods having the same name but about a prophet speaking in the name of another god other than the true God, whatever the name of those other gods are. Your argument here is the one that is so silly, that it’s what should be done away with.

        • Greg G.

          Did you miss the point again? I cited the verse because it is the only other place where the phrase “in the name of” is used for a plurality of gods yet the singular noun is still used. So what if some gods have the same name, not all gods have the same name.

          Another thing is that Matthew 28:19 doesn’t give any names. It doesn’t list Allah, Jesus, and Casper.

          The prepositional phrase “to you and me” is essentially the same as “to you and to me”. Both can be understood as the separate sense or collective sense. The preposition is implied with the conjunction. So, “in the name of F and S and G” could be understood as “in the name of F and in the name of S and in the name of G” with “in the name of” implied. Not only are there disagreements among Christians about the baptism between the Sprinklers and the Dunkers, there are splits with the Dunkers whether there should be single immersion or triple immersion due to the ambiguity of that verse.

          Therefore, you should retire the singular name argument. It shows the desperation Trinitarians have for arguments.

          You claim that the Trinity is clearly seen in the Bible yet all you can offer are ambiguous verses and non sequiturs.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          That is the biggest prayer failure of all time as Christians cannot agree over so many things. There are over 45,000 different denominations.

        • Myna

          Agabu argues anything that doesn’t agree with his own view through the kaleidoscope. Scroll down to the comments here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/chorusinthechaos/an-unholy-alliance-christianity-and-slavery-in-birth-of-a-nation-2016/

        • Greg G.

          See what you made me do:

          http://disq.us/p/1d1ckx4

        • Myna

          Oh my! And a rational inquiry, too! Surely you read out of context and thus interpret wrongly. Or, thee shall be ignored altogether! Which shall it be, I wonder?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lumping good fuck..not another advocate of the “indentured servitude” apologetic ballix ffs….Agabu is an absolute fuckwit, no mistaking.

        • Agabu

          Retire the singular name argument? Give me a break! Your entire argument is on sinking sand here. The fact is Deuteronomy 18:20 doesn’t support you in the least. Other Bible renderings (actually most) use “in the name of another god.” Point being, “in the name of ” is linked to one god at a time. Other Bible renderings of gods instead of god contextually still have that in mind. It’s clear you’re on a sinking ship when deflecting to irrelevant issues becomes the name of the game, Alleged prayer failures relating to the prayer of Jesus in John 17, and appeals to 45, 000 denominations. Dude, this reeks of desperation. All this stuff you tack on, not pertinent to the issue at hand.

        • Greg G.

          Point being, “in the name of” is linked to one god at a time.

          Bingo! Cue hair-splitting to exempt that statement for Matthew 28:19.

          Alleged prayer failures relating to the prayer of Jesus in John 17, and appeals to 45, 000 denominations.

          That was in response to your mention of a “true God”.

        • Your entire argument is on sinking sand here…

          It’s clear you’re on a sinking ship…

          reeks of desperation

          You know how gamblers try to discover a “tell” in the other players to figure out if they have a good hand or bad? We’ve found yours.

        • Weak, weak, weak! This is pathetic even for you Greg.

          You lose in the minds of the lurkers when you feel that you need to add insults to your comments.

        • Agabu

          Calling someone’s argument weak isn’t an insult. There’s plenty of those from your cheering crowd here, which isn’t surprising. No good argument? Resort to invective and personal attacks. Look around, you’ll get the picture.

        • “This is pathetic even for you” isn’t an insult? Better rethink.

        • Agabu

          Not at all. Greg’s line of reasoning is pathetic. What part of that is a personal attack again?

        • Myna

          Greg’s line of reasoning is pathetic.

          Translation: Greg’s line of reasoning doesn’t agree with mine, therefore his is pathetic and mine is not.

          Perhaps less of a personal attack than grandiosity on your end, Agabu.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Agabu’s line of reasoning, such that it is, amounts to ….”my interpretation is right, because I’m a Trooo Christian”…ego, “because I say so”.

        • Jesus wouldn’t admit that he was wrong, so why should you, amirite?

        • Susan

          Calling someone’s argument weak isn’t an insult.

          It is if that’s all you’ve got. So far, that’s all you’ve got.

          Look around, you’ll get the picture.

          You’ve been here a long while now and have evaded every request on every level to define your terms and support your claims.

          Instead, you just make assertions in fuzzy language without supporting a thing.

          I’ve looked around.

        • Agabu

          Nice try Susan. Clearly you haven’t really read my back and forth with Greg. When it comes to fuzzy language without supporting a thing, that’s all Greg.

        • Myna

          Greg has supported everything he has brought to the table in opposition to your argument. There has been no fuzzy language on his end, he has been quite clear, but perhaps there is some fuzzy comprehension on your side. Did you ever consider that?

        • adam

          ” and dismisses any anti-Trinitarian claims as unfounded.”

          Not this one:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48f64686cc56c93e340da908278a26b5ca4234795178a430344b7c7698c95824.jpg

          Simple logic….

        • Kodie

          I’m not going to argue with you about your interpretation of fiction. You’re allowed to warp it anyway that makes you like the story… because it’s fiction.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s kind of neat when one sentence negates the next.

          the teaching that from the beginning was taken as a given, and
          Christians addressing those challenges using Scripture to combat it,

          followed by

          . At the time you say, Trinitarianism won, much of the Christian Church was in the grip of the non-Trinitarian Arians.

          So Agabu is saying that the teaching that was taken as a given was not held by large groups of Christians, which pretty much makes the point that there wasn’t a core teaching for quite some time. In fact, the Cathars were non-trinitarians in the 11th century until the Roman Church expunged them.

        • Greg G.

          Verses that Support the Biblical Unitarian Position (videos)

          clear explanations of the verses in the Bible that Trinitarians have sometimes used in attempts to “prove” the Trinity

          The simple fact is the Jesus-is-not-God position violates the God-is-one position. Hardly symmetrical.

          Since the Bible supports the Trinitarian and the Unitarian positions, it cannot be correct for either position. You have a good reason to reject the Bible as a source of knowledge about the nature of the universe.

        • All well and good, but how does the presupposition that Agabu is correct fit in?

          Gotcha!

        • Agabu

          No, I only have a good reason to reject your irrational view here. The Bible supports both Trinitarian and Unitarian positions. Good grief! What the heck are you talking about?

        • Greg G.

          A few shamelessly pilfered verses that show Jesus and God are not the same:

          John 17:3
          “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

          Mark 13:32 (NASB)
          “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”

          1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB)
          For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, …

          1 Corinthians 8:6 (NASB)
          yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

          Ephesians 4:5-6 (NASB)
          one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

        • Agabu

          Once again, none of these verses show what you think they show. .

          John 17:3 distinguishes between God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ. To know God the Father and Jesus Christ is eternal life singular. If God and Jesus Christ are separate “beings” knowing each of them as separate beings can’t give you the SAME eternal life. That would be ludicrous. The great God and a lesser god can’t give you the same eternal life. Only the one true God can do that. In this passage that is the Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent into the world.

          Mark 13:32 once again distinguishes between the Father and the Son not between “God” and “god.” The Son not knowing here is in the present active participle, meaning He doesn’t know as He is then speaking on earth as a human being, but as God He knows everything as God the Father knows.

          1 Timothy 2:5 shows the uniqueness of Christ. He is the one who represents God to humans and humans to God. Why? Because He shares in the nature of God knowing everything God knows and shares i human nature and knows everything about that. This makes him a perfect mediator between God and humans. This ironically shows that Jesus is God.

          1 Corinthians 8:6 tells us that both the Father and Jesus Christ were involved in bringing everything else into being. Creating everything is something only God did. This passage says Christ was an agent of creation, therefore Christ is God according to this passage also.

          Ephesians 4:5-6 tells us there is only one Lord (Jesus Christ), and one God and Father who is over all. The thing is for God to be over all, that makes Him Lord. But we’ve already being told there’s only one Lord (Jesus Christ). If the one God is over all, and Christ is the one Lord, He therefore is the same God that the Father is who is over all, through all and in all. In other words, Jesus Christ is God.

        • Greg G.

          Are you blind? John 17 is Jesus praying to the father. The Trinity makes less sense in that context.

          He doesn’t know as He is then speaking on earth as a human being, but as God He knows everything as God the Father knows.

          That means they are not the same being.

          Ha ha ha. A mediator cannot mediate between itself and something else.

          1 Corinthians 8:6 reflects Philo’s understanding where the Logos was a demiurge.

          Ephesians 4 is listing separate things. Notice that one baptism and one faith are not God. You really have to ignore that to read your interpretation into it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are you blind?

          You really have to ignore that to read your interpretation into it.

          Or just wearing a particular colour of magic spectaculars to read his particular flavour of Christian woo-woo. Either way, one in the same.

        • Agabu

          Yes Jesus is praying to the Father, which establishes the distinction between them as not the same, wait for it, “person.” “Person” and “being” aren’t synonymous. Who God is, is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What God is, is one divine being. Therefore, while Jesus is distinct from the person of the Father, He is the same being as the Father.

          The person of Christ as distinct from the person of the Father mediates between God the Father and humans.

          Of course one faith and one baptism are not God. They’re not treated as persons. one Lord and one God and Father are. Therefore, simple reading still assigns divine status to the one Lord and the one Father. Your reading here is flimsy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Person” and “being” aren’t synonymous.

          Except they totally are, ya dopey clown.

          http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/person

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/person

          http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/person

          The rest is just the gobbledygook that is the Trinity.

        • adam

          “”Person” and “being” aren’t synonymous.

          Except they totally are, ya dopey clown.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48f64686cc56c93e340da908278a26b5ca4234795178a430344b7c7698c95824.jpg

        • Greg G.

          The person of Christ as distinct from the person of the Father mediates between God the Father and humans.

          A mediator is a third party. Your interpretation fails big time.

          Of course one faith and one baptism are not God. They’re not treated as persons. one Lord and one God and Father are. Therefore, simple reading still assigns divine status to the one Lord and the one Father. Your reading here is flimsy.

          Don’t blame my reading. It is the way it is written. If the author thought The Lord and the Father were a Trinity, they would not be written as separate concepts.

        • Agabu

          Of course, a mediator is a third party. Christ is that third party that “stands” between God and humans. He is a person distinct from God the Father while sharing in the same nature of God with Him but also took into Himself human nature thus having that in common with every human being. Your inability to grasp this is your failure big time.

          Your reading of the way it’s written is at fault here. Of course, they’re written as separate concepts because theological rudiments are being delineated and emphasized while also being appropriately linked to one another. Your criticisms still fall flat with no substance to them.

        • adam

          “Christ is that third party that “stands” between God and humans. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • adam

          “Your reading of the way it’s written is at fault here. ”

          No, that would be the fault of the way it’s written…..

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ed69d49ba304defb472070fe163df39e26a656d5600d17a00e79a4af3f624b16.jpg

        • adam

          “Yes Jesus is praying to the Father, which establishes the distinction between them as not the same,”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4e5bf0bb965dfea057390a60ed5831b4a71e150c0766d79eca7bf17a4b30f682.jpg

        • Greg G.

          VII. Bible Verses Prove Trinity False

          Listed below are over a hundred individual Bible verses which prove conclusively that Jesus Christ was not God, but God’s Son. We urge all sincere Christians to examine their own Bibles as to the accuracy of this information.

          Matthew 3:16-17; 8:29; 11:27; 12:18; 14:33; 16:16-17; 17:5; 27:54
          Mark 5:7; 15:39
          Luke 1:32; 1:35; 8:28; 9:35; 10:22
          John 1:13; 1:18; 1:34; 1:49; 3:16; 5:19-23; 5:37; 6:40; 6:69; 8:18; 8:42; 10:15; 10:36; 11:4; 12:49-50; 14:13; 14:23; 14:28; 16:17; 17:1-16; 20:17; 20:31
          Acts 2:22-24; 3:13; 3:26; 9:20
          Romans 1:4; 5:10; 8:29
          1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28
          2 Corinthians 1:19
          Galatians 4:4
          Philippians 2:9
          Colossians 1:13
          1 Thessalonians 1:10
          1 Timothy 2:5
          Hebrews 1:2; 2:9; 4:14; 5:7-8
          1 Peter 1:3
          2 Peter 1:17
          1 John 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:10; 4:14-15; 5:11-12
          2 John 1:9
          Revelation 2:18

        • Agabu

          Sorry Greg to burst that bubble, but none of these verses in any size shape or form “conclusively prove” that Jesus Christ was not God. None whatsoever. As a sincere Christian I’ve already examined them all, and have found that instead of relegating Jesus Christ to the status of not being God, they confirm His being God. A case in point is Hebrews 1:2, which you give in the list. Jesus in that verse is distinguished as the Son. In verse 5 God the Father identifies Him as His Son, thereby setting a distinction between Himself and Christ. The Father is clearly said to be God. But the plot thickens here in this chapter. In verse 8 God the Father explicitly calls the Son, “God.” It doesn’t end there, verse 8 says the Son created the heavens and the earth in the beginning hearkening back to Genesis 1, which says in the beginning God created the universe.

          The simple fact is Hebrews 1 affirms the Son as God when you read it in whole. All the other verses you quoted pretty much do the same thing when read in context. Calling Jesus Christ the Son of God is never a denial of His being God, it is a confirmation of His being God. His being called the Son is a “personal” (a term that has to be supplied for the sake of clarifying) distinction in the being of God. God’s being is one. But that one being consists of Father (whom Hebrews 1 refers to as God proper), Son (whom Hebrews 1 again refers to as God proper) and the Spirit (whom Hebrews 2:4 refers to as God as well). In every instance each of these three “persons” is singularly called “God.” Not separate independent gods from the others, but the personal subjects subsisting in the essence of the one God.

        • Your job isn’t to overturn a proof that Jesus wasn’t God. Rather, you need to defend your claim that (1) the Trinity is obviously in the Bible and (2) any non-Trinitarian view is clearly wrong and can’t be supported with the Bible.

        • Agabu

          Claim defended, and non-Trinitarian views exposed as lacking support in the Bible by analysis of Hebrews 1. What else do you want? A long winded analysis of some non-Trinitarian view, when one has done that by positively showing Trinitarianism in the Bible? Give me a break!

        • Greg G.

          Not so fast, see http://disq.us/p/1cz3uuz

          Hebrews 1 shoots you down. You fail to realize that it is cherry-picking the Old Testament but still refutes your interpretation.

        • Agabu

          Like you cherry-picked a litany of verses that you allege deny Jesus Christ being God? Now explain to me how Hebrews 1 shoots me down exactly.

        • Michael Neville

          A Christian is complaining about someone cherry-picking Biblical verses? Or is he complaining that a non-Christian is trespassing on a rite reserved only for Christians?

        • Greg G.

          I gave you the links to my sources. The Unitarians have no more evidence than you do. But the point is that Trinitarians and Unitarians can both support their position by citing Bible verses. You both cherry-pick verses but the biggest problem is that you are using a book of fiction.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But, but, but, Agabu’s verses are Trooooo!

          I feel a No True Scotsman Fallacy coming very soon.

        • Greg G.

          I feel a No True Scotsman Fallacy coming very soon.

          Your use of the Force was fulfilled almost immediately here:

          http://disq.us/p/1czfsqo

          “Your sources prove nothing of substance save to show that some people read the Bible differently. “

        • Ignorant Amos

          Haaaa!

          Agabu doesn’t get it that that is the point, some lots of people read the bible differently.

          That’s why there is a number of various exegesis and even more eisegesis. His major malfunction is not realising that his has no more veracity than the others and it’s that fact that is making him look embarrassingly the fool.

          As with all understanding within the Church, there tends to exist three levels: the scholarly, the pastoral, and the lay. Pastoral and lay levels are more often concerned with denominational fidelity than with objective accuracy. Scholars, to be true scholars, must rise above the constraints of denominational orthodoxy and perform exegesis that is not designed to confirm already-held beliefs. If a given scholar begins his exegesis with the idea that the denomination that sponsors him holds a certain belief on this or that subject, and then sets out to “prove” that is true, he has abandoned his scholarly integrity. He has lost objectivity. He has become a mere agenda-driven propagandist.

          ….

          Seventy-one percent (71%) of pastors said when they read the Bible for study, they regularly just looked for what they wanted and did not read it in context.

          · Sixty-two percent (62%) of pastors said when they prepared Bible studies or sermons, they rarely looked up what they did not know or understand and just “winged-it.” The same percentage also said they regularly read into a passage what was not there in order to make their point.

          http://www.churchleadership.org/apps/articles/?articleid=67933&columnid=4624

          Christians are well aware of the problems within their own ranks. Agabu is here getting bent outta shape because we atheists are just stating the obvious.

        • Agabu

          Your sources prove nothing of substance save to show that some people read the Bible differently. The thing is you’re reading it differently, and harping on about how you think you’re right with the assumption that it’s all fiction anyway. Whether the book is fiction or not is irrelevant here. What is relevant is what does the book actually say.

        • Greg G.

          Your sources prove nothing of substance save to show that some people read the Bible differently. “

          Those who read it differently don’t have to read their unitarian beliefs into the text nor do the clearest verses for their position have evidence of being interpolated.

          Whether the book is fiction or not is irrelevant here. What is relevant is what does the book actually say.

          That is exactly wrong. You are making a truth claim based on the book which means the issue of whether it is fiction is extremely relevant for your claim. OTOH, what the book says does not support your claim because it is ambiguous on the topic.

        • Agabu

          Stop evading the issue using Unitarians and their misreadings. I’m making a basic claim about what Scripture is saying. Your claims about fiction remain irrelevant to the issue. Interpretation of internal contents not outside assumptions foreign to the text of Scripture are the pertinent things.

        • Greg G.

          The Unitarians are making claims about what the Bible says and their arguments make more sense until they say they are monotheists.

          You are twisting the readings. One verse clearly refers to God and Jesus as different and the next can be twisted to equivocate them as one, so you do it.

        • adam

          “I’m making a basic claim about what Scripture is saying. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae1afb4336eb43eac4eb6542320889b4c9068fa20364f91b3a3a3b8f6e3a0f88.png

          Me too!

        • adam

          “Your sources prove nothing of substance save to show that EVERY PERSON READS the Bible differently.”

          FTFY

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b44c99f495406f1f80b97716ec7951aa63f124a9698cbfc51f2758edfdb3404d.jpg

        • adam

          The simple fact is that you have nothing to demonstrate that YOUR “God” is anything but IMAGINARY.

          So blah, blah, blah what an old fictional story says…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9e4f2abf600ae0778a56e72f17b2204d0a822e6f11a8d60320b9bbd3af6c92c5.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          …when read in context.

          Greg, you should know that arguing with a theist about their holy book is pointless. They’ll use “when read in context” to claim that a verse which clearly and plainly says “this is black” really means “this is white” or even “this is a lovely shade of mauve”. That’s the whole point of Biblical exegesis, pulling an interpretation from a clear, unambiguous statement to get it to mean anything the theist wants to advance their argument.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, but they will always take a verse out of context to support a position.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, read the context. Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly has God and the Son as separate. Verse 3 has the Son as a representation of God, not the same thing. Verse 4 says the son is superior to the angels but it does not say that he is equal to God, so the comparison to angels indicates the author thought the son was not the father.

          Verse 5 quotes Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 and/or 1 Chronicles 17:13, clearly showing they are different. Verse 6 differentiates the father from the firstborn and quotes Deut. 32:43. Verse 7 quotes Psalm 104:4 about angels. Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes Psalm 45:6-7 and pretends it was about the son. Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102:25-27. Verse 13 quotes Psalm 110:1 pretending the ancient Jews were writing about the son.

          So the context supports the Unitarian position more than the Trinitarian position.

        • Agabu

          Hebrews 1:1-2 distinguishes between God and the Son. Verse 3 doesn’t merely have the Son as a representation of God but as “the EXACT representation of His being.” Point: the Son has the very nature of God. Verse 4 takes the thought of verse 3 to establish the superiority of the Son to the angels. Angels are great spiritual beings, but the Son is greater than them. Why? Because He is the radiance of God’s glory and the EXACT representation of His being. It says nothing of His not being equal to God. Only you read that INTO the text.

          Verse 5 quotes from Psalms and 2 Samuel establishing a distinction in God between the Father and the Son. This is standard proof-texting using Old Testament Scripture to show the uniqueness of Christ over people and over angels. Your allegations that Hebrews “pretends” that these quotes are about the Son are unfounded assumptions. They are just your speculations.

          Unitarianism is hardly supported in Hebrews 1, it is actually dispelled as false.

          As a sidebar, if Jesus is above humans and angels but less than God. What is he? A powerful being who isn’t an angel but not God either? If he is god-like, which is what we would have to say since he is apparently still the Son of God that would make him another god of sorts. This means that Unitarianism’s claim to being purely monotheistic isn’t true since there’s another lesser god of sorts, namely the Son a spiritual being greater than angels yet less than God. Trinitarianism has no such problems. In fact it is much more coherent and a simpler explanation than Unitarianism.

        • Greg G.

          The NIV says “exact representation” while the NRSV says “the exact imprint of God’s very being”. An imprint is not the thing itself.

          It says nothing of His not being equal to God. Only you read that INTO the text.

          It doesn’t say that the son is equal to God. If he was supposed to be God, it would say he was God, it would not have to say “superior to angels”. “Only you read that INTO the text” is projection on your part.

          That the OT was written about Jesus is a Christian pretension.

          As a sidebar, if Jesus is above humans and angels but less than God. What is he?

          Angels are fiction and God is fiction. Jesus fits in there.

          This means that Unitarianism’s claim to being purely monotheistic isn’t true since there’s another lesser god of sorts, namely the Son a spiritual being greater than angels yet less than God.

          I agree. Unitarianism is false. Monotheism is false, too.

          Trinitarianism has no such problems. In fact it is much more coherent and a simpler explanation than Unitarianism.

          Trinitarianism has its own problems. It is incoherent and nowhere near as simple as monotheism. The primary problem is that there is no evidence for any type of god.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Only you read that INTO the text” is projection on your part.

          BINGO!

          Christian apologetics in a nutshell.

        • Agabu

          The Son is an EXACT representation (imprint) of God’s very being. An EXACT thing is an EQUAL thing. Nothing less than God can be an exact representation of His being. Only something with His very nature can do that. Your appeals to imprint not being the same thing is an interpretative failure that ignores the text distinguishing the Father from the Son, while it assigns the same being of God to both.

          Your protestations to the contrary, Hebrews 1:8 clearly calls the Son, “God,” and the chapter later has the Father assert that “He created the heavens and the earth. In other words, the Son is God the Creator.

          Your claims about God being fiction are irrelevant here. We’re trying to get at what Scripture is saying in its own right, and not what you assume about its subject matter. Set aside that bias, because it isn’t the point of discussion. This is why you’re failing at reading the Bible properly. Christian appeals to the OT aren’t pretensions but acceptance of the authority of those writings. The fact that you beforehand think God is fiction makes this assessment of alleged Christian pretension superfluous.

          Trinitarianism has difficulties not problems. Contradiction isn’t its issue, mystery is. The mystery of the infinite God whose depths can never be fully exhausted. It is a complex doctrine albeit simply laid out.

        • Greg G.

          The Son is an EXACT representation (imprint) of God’s very being. An EXACT thing is an EQUAL thing. Nothing less than God can be an exact representation of His being.

          Your interpretation of “exact” creates a contradiction in terms with “representation” or “imprint” of the “married bachelor” type. It makes the verse completely meaningless, which is rather complimentary to the Trinity concept you are trying to support.

          Your appeals to imprint not being the same thing is an interpretative failure that ignores the text distinguishing the Father from the Son, while it assigns the same being of God to both.

          I am not the person who “ignores the text distinguishing the Father from the Son.”

          Your protestations to the contrary, Hebrews 1:8 clearly calls the Son, “God,” and the chapter later has the Father assert that “He created the heavens and the earth. In other words, the Son is God the Creator.

          The author of Hebrews was mistaken to interpret Psalm 45 as being about Jesus but the quotation continues into verse 9 where it the author clearrly had no concept of the Trinity as it refers to God as being separate from the Son. You are projecting your brainwashing into the text.

          Your claims about God being fiction are irrelevant here. We’re trying to get at what Scripture is saying in its own right, and not what you assume about its subject matter. Set aside that bias, because it isn’t the point of discussion. This is why you’re failing at reading the Bible properly. Christian appeals to the OT aren’t pretensions but acceptance of the authority of those writings.

          It is improper to read ancient literature as capital S Scripture. But you are not trying to get at what it says in its own right, you are using the text as a ventriloquist dummy to make it say what you want it to say. You want the literature to hold fantastical truths but you are willing to be gullible to allow that but when it doesn’t support an ancient “compromise by committee,” you read it into the text anyway.

          Trinitarianism has difficulties not problems. Contradiction isn’t its issue, mystery is. The mystery of the infinite God whose depths can never be fully exhausted. It is a complex doctrine albeit simply laid out.

          You say “mystery”, I say “incoherent”.

        • Agabu

          Don’t make me laugh. There’s no contradiction here except in your determination to keep it a contradiction due to your “no God exists” bias. Exact here alternatively refers to accurate. The Son is an accurate representation of God’s being, because, like verse 8 says, He is God. There’s just no way anyone less than God can be the most accurate or exact representation of His being. Only a person in the very form of God can do that.

          Claims about the writer of Hebrews being mistaken about Psalm 45 are useless here. The fact is he applies divinity to Christ with that quote, which inconveniences your nonsense about Jesus not being God or conflicting with monotheism internally. This shows you to be the one who makes Scripture say whatever you want it to say. I mean seriously dude, get the “no God” fantasy out of the way, and read Scripture on its terms. You hold to “no God” thinking, which makes it hard for you to take and treat Scripture sensibly and seriously.

          I don’t want Scripture to say anything other than what it says on its own terms. There are no claims about one writing being mistaken about its use of another writing from my end. Such a characterization is disingenuous, and just plain bad reasoning imposed on Scripture. At the end of day your interpretive manglings are the only thing incoherent here. It would when you were “Christian”
          if at all you really were one (which I highly doubt), you never really understood Christian doctrine adequately then nor do you now. Your grasp of it seems far more terrible now.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t make me laugh.

          We are all in stiches at your nonsense already.

          There’s no contradiction here except in your determination to keep it a contradiction due to your “no God exists” bias.

          There’s that strawman again…you are being a dick.

          Your religion is blighted with contradictions from it’s very first days ya eejit. No atheists involved. Christians contradicting Christians from the cults earliest beginnings. Putting your head in a bucket of sand and singing la-la-la-la-la won’t make the Emperors new clothes any easier for the rest of us to see. The problems are right there in the scripture for all to see. There’s a reason why there are 55,000+ flavours of the nonsense ya fool.

        • adam

          “There’s no contradiction here except in your determination to keep it a contradiction due to your “no God exists” bias. ”

          Here is YOUR opportunity to demonstrate that YOUR “God” is anything but IMAGINARY, and remove the ‘no God exists” bias.

          Are you up to it?

          Or are you just stuck on stupid with your ‘God exists’ bias? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e7c85f83a051737489a88bbc6af7ae1f629a7c020304dd72287796458bc2580.jpg

        • Greg G.

          I don’t want Scripture to say anything other than what it says on its own terms.

          The Bible makes no explicit claim of a Trinity. One must read that into the text. Hebrews 1 has verses tht explicitly refer to the son and the father as separate entities and has a few ambiguous verses that you weave into your belief system.

          You have cited Matthew 28:19-20 as a verse to support your claim but there is textual evidence that the part you need is not in Matthew in the early 4th century.

          1 John 5:7-8 has text that shows up in the Latin Vulgate not in Greek manuscripts.

          The rest of your support is flimsy with tenuous readings.

        • adam

          Hey, I stand behind my post….

          lol….

        • Greg G.

          Sorry, I see that I replied to the wrong post. It was probably because of the DDoS attack. I think that is what took Disqus out with many other sites.

        • adam

          Yeah, sure, sure…….DDoS attack, lol.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So that’s why Disqus was playing up yesterday…it was a pain in the arse to be sure.

        • Greg G.

          Yeah, I noticed that Disqus was working when they said the DDoS was over and it failed when the next wave hit. So it wasn’t Disqus’ fault. Hillary will blame the Russians and Trump will blame a fat kid in the basement.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not meant for Adam I’m sure.

        • Greg G.

          You are correct, sir!

        • Greg G.

          I don’t want Scripture to say anything other than what it says on its own terms.
          The Bible makes no explicit claim of a Trinity. One must read that into the text. Hebrews 1 has verses tht explicitly refer to the son and the father as separate entities and has a few ambiguous verses that you weave into your belief system.

          You have cited Matthew 28:19-20 as a verse to support your claim but there is textual evidence that the part you need is not in Matthew in the early 4th century.

          1 John 5:7-8 has text that shows up in the Latin Vulgate not in Greek manuscripts.

          The rest of your support is flimsy with tenuous readings.

        • Agabu

          When the Bible tells you the Word who was in the beginning with God was God and then that Word became a human being (John 1), and then elsewhere in more than one place organically tells you that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of the one true God, that is a clear claim of the Trinity in the flow of its teaching and narration. Hebrews 1 distinguishes the Son from the Father while explicitly identifying both as God. This is a fact you haven’t been able to get around except to make the cop-out claim that Hebrews 1:8 is a mistaken quote by the writer. How weak.

          Another weak claim is about Matthew 28:19. No Bible translation has a footnote agreeing with your claim, let alone point to earlier manuscripts that don’t have it in the way it’s rendered. 1 John 5:7-8 text that shows up in the Latin Vulgate is an already admitted later addition, so many Bibles omit it. The straws you’re grasping at are the only flimsy thing here. Getting lessons on Christian doctrine from a non-Christian (ex-Christian?) virulently opposed to it, is like getting lessons on contract, family or tax law from a physicist who hates law and lawyers.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Getting lessons on Christian doctrine from a non-Christian (ex-Christian?) virulently opposed to it, is like getting lessons on contract, family or tax law from a physicist who hates law and lawyers.

          Nope, not lessons on doctrine at all, that is theological bullshit.

          Just what is written, as you keep drumming on about.

          You really can’t be that stupid that you don’t realise that there are non-Christians teaching the New Testament to Christians in universities all over the world.

          Raphael Lataster lectures at the University of Sydney (Studies in Religion) and teaches about religion at various institutions. His main research interests include Christian origins, Philosophy of Religion, and alternative god-concepts such as pantheism and pandeism.

          Raphael wrote his Master’s thesis on Jesus ahistoricity theories, concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the ‘Historical Jesus’. For his doctoral work, Raphael analysed the major philosophical arguments for God’s existence (as argued by William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne and Thomas Aquinas), demonstrated the logical improbability of theism, explored the theological tendencies of Philosophy of Religion, and argued for the plausibility of pantheistic worldviews.

          http://www.raphaellataster.com/

          Or…

          https://www.philrs.iastate.edu/directory/hector-avalos/

          http://www.bartdehrman.com/barts-biography/

          http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/bio.htm

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Joseph_Hoffmann

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_L._Mack

          Just a couple for you to be getting on with Ag’s. You are really being a bit of a silly pants on this issue.

        • Pofarmer

          I would think that most people would understand that the concepts of Logos in John are one of the last theological innovations in the New Testament. This idea is found pretty much nowhere else in the NT and not in the OT at all. It stems from the work of people like Philo of Alexandria who was trying to combine Greek ideas and Hebrew religion. https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos

        • Greg G.

          This is a fact you haven’t been able to get around except to make the cop-out claim that Hebrews 1:8 is a mistaken quote by the writer.

          Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes Psalm 45:6-7. Read the context of the quoted passage.

          Many translations have “O God” in Psalm 45:6 with footnotes to the phrase.
          NRSV
          b.Psalm 45:6 Or Your throne is a throne of God, it
          c.Hebrews 1:8 Or God is your throne
          NIV
          c.Psalm 45:6 Here the king is addressed as God’s representative.

          The context of Psalm 45 is that it is a love song to the king, not to Jesus. See

          Psalm 45:16 (NIV)16 Your sons will take the place of your fathers;    you will make them princes throughout the land.

          Are you going to argue that Jesus will have sons to take his place?

          Without the “O God”, the trinitarian interpretation falls apart. Your belief system is in shambles.

          Getting lessons on Christian doctrine from a non-Christian (ex-Christian?) virulently opposed to it, is like getting lessons on contract, family or tax law from a physicist who hates law and lawyers.

          Getting lessons on Christian doctrine from a Christian is like getting getting driving lessons from someone who thinks the steering wheel turns the car by magic.

        • Agabu

          This is a better attempt at trying to deal with the issue than anything you’ve said before.

          However, Psalm 45, while it is a love song to the king, this king is one with divine attributes, even though he is also identified as a man among men. He is for sure God’s representative as you say. Thing is, this is consistent with the Christian claim that Jesus is that man, whose ancestry is in the royal line of David, and therefore the King who is God’s representative who is on God’s very throne.

          The alternative renderings of Psalm 45:6 you allude to don’t in anyway compromise the Trinitarian interpretation. The throne is still God’s throne in those renderings, with the king still being identified with God. As regards to Psalm 45:16, it doesn’t say that Jesus will have sons to take His place, rather that his descendants will be heirs of the royal privileges in God’s kingdom of the King’s ancestors. The progressive parallel structure of this verse warrants this interpretation.

          Even if one thinks the steering wheel turns the car by magic, he does still know one thing, turning the steering wheel will turn the car. Like wise, if God is magic, then He’s the sort of magic that gets things done.

        • Greg G.

          Do you need Psalm 45 to be read to you? You are reading very selectively and ignoring the text that kills your belief.
          That is the cognitive dissonance at work.

          See Psalm 45:9-11 about the queen. Verse 11 says “the king will desire your beauty.” Jesus would pluck his eye out. Verse 9 has the queen in “the gold of Ophir”. Jesus seemed to prefer more humble women. OTOH, why would Jesus’ queen wear heavenly pavement?

          Since the passage is clearly not about Jesus, the author of Hebrews was wrong. Verse 16 is not about Jesus, either. The throne of God was just what the Hebrews called their human king’s throne.

          Therefore, Hebrews 1 does not support the Trinity belief.

        • Agabu

          No text has been ignored. There’s nothing in Psalm 45 that kills Trinitarianism.

          Your jaundiced view of Scripture is hilarious as well as lamentable in equal measure. The King is God’s representative. The Queen is a metaphor for God’s people. How do I know this? Because, the passage talks about “noble women” who are spoken in tandem with the queen at the King’s right hand (verse 9), This is progressive parallelism, where the first thought is restated again in a different way in the the next part of the sentence. The noble women and the queen are two sides of the same coin. As the passage progresses, the queen’s beautiful adornments, the King’s delight in her, the gifts showered on her, joyful procession & sons who become kings like their father the King all point to the queen being the embodiment of all God’s people.

          The fact that the writer of Hebrews quotes from Psalm 45 means that even ancient Jews understood that this Psalm was talking about God’s promised future King. So, you’re the one who is flat out wrong here really. The writer of Hebrews being aware of this applied this to Christ in light of the Christ event that had just happened in his lifetime. The throne of God was and is God’s throne, and not a mere human throne. This is the throne the King in Psalm 45 is on, which makes Him God Himself.

          Therefore, Hebrews 1 cogently supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

        • Greg G.

          When the Bible tells you the Word who was in the beginning with God was God and then that Word became a human being (John 1), and then elsewhere in more than one place organically tells you that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of the one true God, that is a clear claim of the Trinity in the flow of its teaching and narration.

          The word used for “Word” is “Logos”. The Greeks had problem with how the immaterial god could interact with the material world. The Logos was how they did it. Philo took that concept and tied to make it align with the Jewish scriptures. John (and, I think, Hebrews) borrowed the concept from Philo.

          If yo say that one part of the Trinity became a human being, you commit the heresy of partialism.

          If the Trinity is one, the whole becomes a human, but then there would be nobody to pray to. Jesus would have multiple personality disorder.

        • Agabu

          This response is just plain silly and ludicrous. You’re writing in a language with words borrowed from the English. Am we to assume that everything you’re saying here is taken from the Anglo-saxons? Please! John was conversant in Greek, and used his points about the Christian faith with the language in a way his audience who were Greek-speaking would understand. The Word (Logos) was there at the beginning (thus making Him eternal); was in the beginning with God (thus distinguishing Him from God); was God (thus identifying Him as God). The Word who became human is clearly Jesus Christ in John’s Gospel. Your bending over backwards to accuse John of stealing words from Philo (HA!) is laughable. Whatever Philo meant with the word is irrelevant. What John means by it in the flow of his narration is what is pertinent. In other words, John’s usage of the word is what’s important.

          The Word who is also called the Son (of God) in John is identified with God, while distinguishing Him from God as shorthand for the God who is personally assumed to be the Father. You’re not very good at making these fine distinctions. Your “no Trinity” or “no God” mental cul-de-sac makes it next to impossible for you to see things differently and so treat this matter responsibly. That’s to be expected. Your analysis ends up making no sense at all.

        • Greg G.

          You should actually read Philo on the subject before you reject his writings.

          I am not accusing John of stealing Philo’s words, I am accusing him of writing in the environmental context of Philo’s influence. Philo applied the concept of the Logos of the Greeks to the God of the Hebrews. John didn’t pull it out of his own ass, he got it from a scholar whose writings were highly thought of for 2000 years.

          You’re not very good at making these fine distinctions. Your “no Trinity” or “no God” mental cul-de-sac makes it next to impossible for you to see things differently and so treat this matter responsibly.

          Your projection is show you are not self-aware. I can see the Trinitarian argument and recognize that it is a bullshit word game.

        • Agabu

          Hahahahaha! O man. Priceless. Hahaha! “I am accusing him of writing in the environmental context of Philo’s influence?” Are you serious? What other context is he going to write in? I accuse you of writing in the environmental context of Friedrich Nietzsche. That’s why you think “no God exists.” Hahaha! O man, O man!

          Philo’s application of the concept of the Logos to the God of the Hebrews, while interesting isn’t very pertinent to understanding John’s Gospel. John used a word that at this point, his original audience were fairly familiar with. What John meant by it is what they cared about more than Philo’s usage of it.

          You’ve already shown that you don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Calling it bullshit proves that point. “Environmental context! O man! Hahaha! O Lord help me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A bullshit word game that many Christians have the nous to reject as nonsense too.

        • james

          “When the Bible tells you the Word who was in the beginning with God was God and then that Word became a human being (John 1), and then elsewhere in more than one place organically tells you that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of the one true God, that is a clear claim of the Trinity in the flow of its teaching and narration.”

          this is like saying that thomas went on stage and expressed himself as a mother, then a child and then a father

          1 person showing himself in 3 different ways implies modalism in trinity.

        • Greg G.

          Good point! The author of John is a heretic.

        • Greg G.

          elsewhere in more than one place organically tells you that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of the one true God

          As james points out, that is the heresy of modalism. If your understanding of the Bible is correct, the Bible is a heretical set of writings. If you are incorrect, you are the heretic.

        • Agabu

          More straw grasping. I’m already aware of the heresy of modalism. You’re already aware I hold to classical Trinitarianism. I’ve already explained that I hold to the fact that Father, Son & Holy Spirit are personal distinctions in the one being of God. If subterfuge is what you got to rely on to discredit me, good Lord man, you really will use anything to prove me wrong, even outright lies.

        • Greg G.

          If the Bible cannot express the concept of the Trinity without committing heresy, is it a valid concept? If three equals one, then the questions like whether God can make a rock so big that he can’t lift it become valid. You cannot fall back on the weak definition of omnipotence as the Trinity is not logically possible. It is an outright lie to say that it is logically possible.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48f64686cc56c93e340da908278a26b5ca4234795178a430344b7c7698c95824.jpg Father, Son & Holy Spirit are personal distinctions in the one being of God”

        • busterggi

          Agabu stepped in mud once and made such an EXACT imprint duplicate of himself that the imprint took over his like. Hence the depth of his arguements are those of a footprint.

        • epeeist

          The Son is an EXACT representation (imprint) of God’s very being.

          Sigh:

          1. G is defined as {F, S, H} (God defined as {Father,Son,Holy Spirit})

          2. F=G AND S=G AND H=G (God wholly present as Father and wholly present as Son, and wholly present as Holy Spirit)

          3. F=S=H=G (from 2, because ‘=’ is a transitive relation)

          4. G := {F, F, F} (from 1 and 3)

          5. G := {S, S, S} (from 1 and 3)

          6. G := {H, H, H} (from 1 and 3}

          7. G := [G, G, G] (from 1 and 3)

          8. G := {{F, S, H}, {F, S, H}, {F, S, H}} (from 7 and 1)

          Statements 4-8 contradict 1. and 2.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah yes, I used to have that one saved some place…is that an epeeist original or is it courtesy of Steve Zara…I’ve forgot, it’s been a wee while?

        • epeeist

          is that an epeeist original or is it courtesy of Steve Zara

          Originally from Steve and MPhil in a debate Steve had with Dominic Bnonn Tennant.

          EDIT: I should add that the believer has a possible way out of this, namely they could claim that the Fidei Scutum (which is the source of the argument) cannot be described by a standard Boolean algebra. In step 3. above they can claim that the relationship is not transitive.

          Now this is ad hoc of course and it also means that they are abandoning standard deductive logic (“if all cats are mammals and all mammals feed their young on milk then all cats feed their young on milk” would no longer apply). They need to justify their use of a non-standard logic (and “in order to make the Fidei Scutum work” doesn’t count as justification).

        • MNb

          “Trinitarianism has difficulties not problems. Contradiction isn’t its issue, mystery is. The mystery of the infinite God whose depths can never be fully exhausted. It is a complex doctrine albeit simply laid out.”
          Yeah, like the pastafarian doctrine that the correct colour for spaghetti sauce is not white, not red, but both and neither at the same time. This sauce doctrine has difficulties, not problems. Contradiction isn’t its issue, mystery is. The mystery of the infinite Spaghetti Flying Monster whose depths can never e fully exhausted is reflected in exactly the spaghetti sauce doctrine. It is a complex doctrine albeit simply laid out.
          You only reject it because of your no Flying Spaghetti Monster bias.
          That or made up nonsense like yours.

        • adam

          “Your claims about God being fiction are irrelevant here. We’re trying to
          get at what Scripture is saying in its own right, and not what you
          assume about its subject matter.”

          In its own right? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60865103a336b5d68f96eb3254e706491af8f8a5dbd80dafef9edf2beab0319d.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • MNb

          “if Jesus is above humans and angels but less than God. What is he?”
          The whole Trinitarian issue doesn’t interest met at all, but if anything shows that you’re silly it’s this question.
          There are no angels.
          There is no god.
          So it’s nonsense to figure out how Jesus is placed relative to them.
          Jesus is a former human being. Now he’s dead.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Jesus is a former human being. Now he’s dead.

          Maybe….maybe not.

        • MNb

          You sound as if you agree with Agabu: Jesus was not a human being and now he’s not dead. Funny.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course that’s one way to interpret my comment. But then you know very well that that interpretation is absurd given my history here on this forum. So not all that funny in reality.

          It’s more than just possible that Jesus is merely a highly embellished over time, fictional character, in a holy book along the lines of Mo’s Gabriel, or Smith’s Moroni.

          Characters in books don’t really die, especially ones that are characters in the plot that can’t die, say gods and such like. Or other fictional characters, like those found in comic books.Ya get the picture am sure.

        • MNb

          “But then you know very well …”
          And given my history, ao with you, on this very same forum you know very well that I do. Assuming, given the usual level of your comments, that you’re not exactly stupid it should not be hard for you to figure out why I preferred to bring up that particular interpretation – and added the phrases “you sound as if” and “funny”; what my motivation and intention was. Must I conclude that your obsession with a character worshipped so much in your native country tends to decrease your considerable intellectual skills and prevents you from getting the picture I painted in soft pastel colours in my previous comment?
          In that case I’ll tell you straight in your face.
          Fuck off and go satisfy your obsession elsewhere. You won’t drag me into your favourite rabbit hole unless I feel like and that’s not now. Reread this paragraph a couple of times, because I already told you this once before and apparently you didn’t get the message.

          “It’s more than just possible ….”
          Yeah, it’s also more than just possible that I will be the next president of the USA.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Mark, it was only meant as a bit of banter between online friends that don’t see eye to eye on a particular issue. Nothing more. A bit of a piss take.

          Yes, I do know how you feel, and know that you know my position. I was messing around. I seen your comment and with a wee drink on me, thought about a bit of a windup.

          I apologise for any upset or annoyance. I promise not to engage with you on this topic again. I don’t wish to fall out over it, because I do consider you a friend.

          Fair enough?

        • MNb

          Sigh.
          My name is MNb on internet.
          Feel free to take my comments as banter as well; you should know that I’m an unfriendly, nasty, grumpy atheist, unlike Hemant Mehta.
          No apologies necessary, you’ve done me no harm.
          Please don’t take any of my comments seriously, even when they are serious. This is just internet. I just like a good quarrel. As long as I react I enjoy it (including now). As soon as I don’t enjoy it anymore I quit. Heck, I don’t even hold grudges against the two atheists who banned me; no way I hold anything against you.
          We’ve always been good afaIc. And feel free to mock and tease me as well; just be prepared for some nasty reactions. So I won’t keep you to your promise.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Trinitarianism has no such problems. In fact it is much more coherent and a simpler explanation than Unitarianism.

          You don’t half write some rubbish.

          The original Apostles Creed.

          I believe in God the Father almighty;
          and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
          Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
          Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
          on the third day rose again from the dead,
          ascended to heaven,
          sits at the right hand of the Father,
          whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
          and in the Holy Spirit,
          the holy Church,
          the remission of sins,
          the resurrection of the flesh
          (the life everlasting).

          The Apostles’ Creed was based on Christian theological understanding of the Canonical gospels, the letters of the New Testament and to a lesser extent the Old Testament. Its basis appears to be the old Roman Creed known also as the Old Roman Symbol. Because of the early origin of its original form, it does not address some Christological issues defined in the Nicene and other Christian Creeds. It thus says nothing explicitly about the divinity of either Jesus or of the Holy Spirit. This makes it acceptable to many Arians and Unitarians. Nor does it address many other theological questions which became objects of dispute centuries later.

          Just about everybody I know claims to be a Christian, not one, I repeat, NOT ONE of them can explain the Trinity when asked to do so.

          But since your arrogance won’t permit acceptance of anything an ex-Christian atheist of the likes of me might say on the matter, let’s take a look at a couple of your fellow Christians to see how they interpret the issue…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dazZmAILY0U

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq8_ah7mBt8

        • Ignorant Amos

          *YAWN*

          “Thus, the Athanasian creed, which is a later composition but reflects the general conceptions of Athanasius [the 4th-century Trinitarian whose view eventually became official doctrine] and his school, formulated the conception of a co-equal Trinity wherein the Holy Spirit was the third ‘Person’; and so it was made a dogma of the faith, and belief in the Three in One and One in Three became a paramount doctrine of Christianity, though not without terrible riots and bloodshed . . .

          “Today a Christian thinker . . . has no wish to be precise about it, more especially since the definition is obviously pagan in origin and was not adopted by the Church until nearly three hundred years after Christ” (pp. 197-203).

          https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/how-ancient-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption-of-the

        • adam

          “What’s relevant is what Christians believed as they interacted with the revelation they received.”

          Ok

          It is all about ‘belief’

        • Agabu

          You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness? (Adolf Hitler)
          Speer, Albert (1997). Inside the Third Reich. New York: Simon and Schuster

        • adam

          So you admit he was Christian/

        • Agabu

          Right. Hitler was a Christian? Really? Even though he clearly hated Christianity. How could he love Jesus Christ, a Jew? He couldn’t. He recast Jesus as an Aryan as per his beliefs.

        • MNb

          He called Jesus his Lord and Savior.
          Typical how you rather accept what others attribute to Hitler (like the notoriously dishonest Speer and the indeed atheist Bormann) than what he said and did himself.

          “He couldn’t.”
          Protestants and catholics could hate each other christianities just fine while keep on loving Jesus Christ from say 1500 – 1650.
          In the 1930’s it wasn’t widely accepted yet that Jesus was a jew.

          “Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God’s truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.”
          Speech, 1922.

          “He recast Jesus ….”
          Given 40 000 christian denominations that’s nothing special.

          Above you called Hitler “the fruit of atheism”.
          You’re simply totally wrong, if not lying.

        • Agabu

          So what if he called Jesus his Lord and Saviour? His later pronouncements betray that claim. Would Jesus, a Jew, have approved of the slaughter of six million of His own kin? If Jesus lived in His time. That evil man would have slaughtered Him too. So much for Jesus being His Lord and Saviour.

        • adam

          “Would Jesus, a Jew, have approved of the slaughter of six million of His own kin?”

          You mean like he did with The Flood?

        • Agabu

          What Jews died in the flood?

        • adam

          Tell me?

          But YOUR ‘God’ is fine with GENOCIDE.

        • Agabu

          Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction or killing of a racial, political, or cultural group.

          Hitler did this to a tee. God in the flood destroyed exceedingly corrupt & evil human civilisations. There was no racial, political or cultural group specifically targeted for unwarranted extermination. There’s just God rightly judging the entire human race for it’s wickedness sparing only 8 people.

        • adam

          “There’s just God rightly judging the entire human race for it’s wickedness sparing only 8 people.”

          All because they didnt agree with “God’s” politics.

          Genocide by definition, yours

          6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

          7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

          He was go angry out of control that “God” killed not only the humans who didnt follow it’s politics, but animals and plants as well.

          What a PETTY monster…..

          Speaking of PETTY monsters…

        • Agabu

          The only one petty here is you. You should have quoted the whole passage, rank wickedness and not politics is why God rightly judges the world then. In case you didn’t notice God went to great lengths to preserve animal life.

        • adam

          So they opposed the way he RAN things, politics.

          “In case you didn’t notice God went to great lengths to preserve animal life.”

          Yes, I understand that you think killing BILLIONS, it not TRILLIONS of animals and ‘saving’ two of each, is ‘great lengths’ for YOUR “God”

          Just shows how demonstrably weak and petty your “God” really is.

        • Agabu

          Nah! Just shows how petty and clumsy you are in dealing with the biblical material.

        • adam

          Yep, petty and cruel god, petty and cruel worshipers.

        • Agabu

          Your feet stomping here don’t make it so big man.

        • Myna A.

          Stomp, stomp, stomp those feet, Agabu!!!! It’s all one big dance! You stomp, he stomps, we all stomp together!

        • Agabu

          Lol! I wish I could join you, but I’m gladly skipping along to a different rhythm and beat, with a real bounce I might add, with the God of this dance called life. Just between you and me, I ‘d rather you join me. It’s freaking awesome ya know?

        • Myna A.

          You already have joined me, Agabu!! You’ve joined us all!! There are none so blind as those who will not see.

        • Agabu

          True dat. None so blind indeed. But hey, I’m seeing for the both of us right now. I can take your hand and bring ya to the one who can make you see so that you avoid that terrible ditch at the end of the road you’re on.

        • Myna A.

          Oh, good grief.

        • Agabu

          LOL!

        • Myna A.

          I thought it was rather amusing, myself. Dance on!

        • Agabu

          Will do. Footloose and fancy free.

        • Myna A.

          Sure thing, Aga doo. Eat some pineapples, too.

        • Kodie

          The imaginary ditch, you superstitious moron? You don’t know anything, you can’t offer anything. Why would a smart person follow you? You’re going nowhere, not even heaven. Silly believer.

        • adam

          “I can take your hand and bring ya to the one who can make you see so
          that you avoid that terrible ditch at the end of the road you’re on.”

          If you could have, you would have.

          Like your imaginary “God” you are impotent.

        • adam

          “I’m skipping along to a different rhythm, with a real bounce I might add, ”

          We noticed

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Myna A.

          LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

        • adam

          No, your demonstration of cruelty is quite sufficient.

        • busterggi

          It does say his followers are in his image.

        • busterggi

          Well its not as if Yahweh could have made all those wicked people die from a human-specific disease or teleport them into the sun or make them just no longer exist or change time so they wouldn’t have been evil – he’s not a god you know.

        • adam

          Such a powerless bugger…

        • Ignorant Amos

          In case you didn’t notice God went to great lengths to preserve animal life.

          You are absolutely hilarious, I’ll give ya that much.

        • Agabu

          Glad to hear I cracked you up. That God, He’s still able to fill the God-less with laughter. Awesome!

        • Aram

          You really mean what you’re saying here and don’t recognize at all how you come across, yes? Wow. Religion surely does turn the human brain into mush.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Keep drinking the Kool-Ade…you’ll be grand.

        • adam

          “Glad to hear I cracked you up.That God, He’s still able to fill the God-less with laughter.”

          Yes, you crack us up.

        • MNb

          Exterminating wickedness is politics. You are mistaken on your own terms.

          “In case you didn’t notice God went to great lengths to preserve animal life.”
          In case you didn’t notice your god went to great lengths to exterminate all animal life but two (or seven – the infallible word of god cannot even agree on that one) representants.
          Question: to what great lengths did your god go to bring two representants of the sloth to the Ark? The animal can’t swim and walks 150 meter per hour.

        • Myna A.

          So, what you are saying is that Yahweh, to all intent and purpose, committed Filicide – the act of a parent killing his or her son or daughter.

        • Agabu

          No, I’m saying God rightly judged the world then for its rank wickedness.

        • adam

          I’m saying God rightly judged the world then for its rank wickedness. “”

          Which it created…

          How petty and cruel.

        • busterggi

          See when I write something important for work I have someone else proofread it to catch my mistakes – Yahweh isn’t smart enough to do that.

        • Myna A.

          Seems to me if Yahweh judged and killed his own creation, living sons and daughters, then he committed filicide. Honor killings, as it were.

        • Agabu

          Bingo! That’s the problem. It SEEMS TO YOU. What the Bible actually says and what it seems to you are totally different.

        • Myna A.

          If the bible says he killed his creation for being wicked, then he, by definition, committed filicide. There’s no way around it.

        • Agabu

          Not at all. Filicide is unjustly killing one’s child. God JUSTLY killed people He created for being unrepentantly wicked your protestations notwithstanding. To unjustly kill someone is murder. To rightly kill someone is justice.

        • Myna A.

          Twist it all you like. If you create sons and daughters, call yourself their father in heaven, then kill them because they disobeyed or offended you, it is an act of filicide. It’s no different than honor killings.

          Here is a link to Yahweh’s temper tantrums: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

        • adam

          /////

        • Agabu

          I think I have read my fill of temper tantrums against the Almighty and the proverbial feet stomping from you.

        • Myna A.

          LoL!!! Being uppity, am I?

        • Kodie

          Is that another lie you believe? You can’t convince anyone that your imaginary friend exists anywhere outside your head or has any effect on the rest of us. You are impotent in your dummy threats and complaints, and you know it, that’s why you wish your best buddy come down and squish us out of spite. That’s your spite, your imaginary friend “god” doesn’t exist.

          Keep whining and feeling helpless and trying to overcompensate by threatening people, you dumb piece of shit. We know you are weak and stupid, but we love it when you keep advertising, it really confirms atheism.

        • Ignorant Amos

          When it’s YahwehJesus that makes up the rules, then anything goes.

          Who else acted like that YahwehJesus? Oh, aye…Josef Stalin. but Stalin was a rank amateur compared to the god of Abraham.

        • busterggi

          Since you believe yahweh was justified perhaps you can tell us exactly what these ‘wicked’ people were doing that so upset your poor widdle deity because no bible I know of can tell me.

        • MNb

          No, you’re saying that just because your true god thought something wicked the genocide or filicide was justified.
          Exactly like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

        • busterggi

          Think of it as very late term abortion – which the bible has no objection to, heck it even gives a recipe for an aborticent.

        • MNb

          Your god is guilty of the deliberate and systematic destruction and killing of all racial, political, cultural groups that form mankind.

        • MNb

          All living ones bar Noah and his crew.

        • adam

          ////

        • Agabu

          Moses? Get your biblical facts straight man.

        • Myna A.

          OH JESUS GOD THE MAN MADE A TYPO!!!!! BRING OUT THE STRAW AND FLINTS!!!!!

        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming my suspicion that your question “what Jews died in the flood” was not a honest one. Of course that’s to be expected from a liar like you. You need such tactics as an attempt to hide your dishonesty.
          I corrected the error.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are a wee bit thick really, aren’t you?

          “Would Jesus, a Jew, have approved of the slaughter of six million of His own kin?”

          Have you read the genealogy in the Gospel according to Luke, soft boy?

        • busterggi

          Hey, Christians had been slaughtering Jews for centuries and Jesus did nothing to stop them so why not? Ever read martin Luther?

        • Agabu

          So some people who claimed to be Christian slaughtered Jews. Give me a verse from the Bible that encourages believers to do this wherever they find them. Any verse that says explicitly or implicitly to slaughter Jews.

        • Myna A.

          Busterggi didn’t allude to any biblical command, but pointed to Martin Luther. He said Christians have slaughtered Jews and Jesus never stopped them from doing so.

          But, the bible does say in Exodus 22:18 KJV: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

          So, Christians having burned “witches” over the centuries, that’s ok? And if it was ok, by biblical verse, why isn’t it ok today?

        • busterggi

          Deut. 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

          13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

          13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

          13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

          Of course originally this meant that Jews should kill all non-Jews but Christians accept the OT so it extends to them as well.

        • Agabu

          So you bring up case law in matters of civil religion and call this evidence for the slaughter of Jews? You really are bending over backwards here to prove a point that isn’t in the text? I’m not surprised in the least

        • MNb

          Liar.
          Bustergii didn’t call those verses “evidence for the slaugher of jews.” He gave you some verses that made christians feel encouraged to slaugher other-believers (jews hardly were the only ones).
          I also like your “some people” – excellent downplay of a history of say 1600 years christianity used as a justification for genocides and other mass murders. It’s typical for a liar like you.

        • Agabu

          So you allege it made some Christians feel encouraged to slaughter other believers, what does that have to do with the Bible insisting on the slaughtering of Jews for being Jews? Tell me o wise one.

        • adam

          Certainly Martin Luther felt as much

          I mean Jesus needs all the help he can get to protect him from those nasty Jews, who messiah story christians ripped off and perverted.

        • busterggi

          And here I quote what are supposed to be your lord’s commands and you deliberately ignore them. You’ll burn in hell for denying your lord.

        • Agabu

          If I were denying my Lord, I would for sure burn in hell. But I trust Him wholly. Jesus is all right with me.

        • adam

          “I trust Him wholly.”

          And yet, you demonstrate that you dont.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Psssst! Haven’t you had the memo yet? No one is burning in Hell 2.0 anymore ya dufus. Do try and keep up.

        • Agabu

          What? There’s a memo saying hell is no more? My God, so many sins to commit. So many people to kill. Especially that guy that looked at me cock-eyed. Please do tell wise ignorant Amos. No time to lose. Those sins aren’t going to commit themselves.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s a memo saying hell is no more?

          Reading for comprehension really isn’t your forte, is it?

          5 Reasons Why More Christians Are Rejecting The Traditional View of Hell

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/5-reasons-why-more-christians-are-rejecting-the-traditional-view-of-hell/

        • MR

          Is that all that keeps Agabu from killing and committing “sins.” Oh, my.

          Thank God for Christianity or that psychopath of an Aggie wouldn’t be restrained from unleashing his evil impulses on Christians and non-Christians alike who don’t seem to have a desire to kill and “sin”–with or without Christianity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christianity doesn’t keep the fuckwits from being psychopathic or committing “sin”…that’s just a convenient nonsense. Just take a look around the Christian controlled world to see how that shite has panned out. A spectacular failure.

        • busterggi

          Ah but you are opposing Yahweh and totally ignoring the nameless holy spook so you lose two votes against to one for.

        • adam

          “”Would Jesus, a Jew, have approved of the slaughter of six million of His own kin?””

          You mean like he promises to do with Armaggeddon?

        • Agabu

          What are you talking about? Now you pulling out hypothetical scenarios as evidence? I don’t know about that. But whatever rocks your boat.

        • adam

          ///

        • MNb

          Jesus would not have approved of many things christians did. Those things are called sin. Every christian is a sinner. Including Hitler.

          “That evil man would have slaughtered Him too.”
          Yeah and if you would have been born 2000 years ago you would have become Roman Empire. One makes as little sense as the other.
          Above you called Hitler a fruit of atheism. As you don’t withdraw it the conclusion is that you’re a liar.

        • busterggi

          has it occurred to you that maybe Hitler wouldn’t have cionsidered YOU to be a real Christian? I find Christians are like that.

        • Agabu

          The measure of a Christian isn’t what Hitler or anyone says it is. It’s what the Bible says a Christian is. The New Testament lays out what constitutes a Christian or Christ follower.

        • adam

          “The New Testament lays out what constitutes a Christian or Christ follower.”

          Spell it out.

          King James Bible
          Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

          So how many “Christians” are their 5?
          A dozen?

          Who did you give all your stuff to?

          I mean you cant be typing on your own keyboard…..

        • Myna A.

          It’s what the Bible says a Christian is.

          Or what you say, anyway. All believers point to the bible and say what they say. You are no different.

        • MNb

          And the Bible coincidentally says what you want it to say.
          Very convincing.

        • busterggi

          And every believer oddly finds the bible says exactly as they believe – coincedence?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Funny thing is that just recently there have been a whole variety of holy rollers pitching up here with their versions of the woo-woo all claiming this “it’s what the Bible says a Christian is” shtick. Then going on to commit the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Why is your version of the woo-woo and its interpretation any different from the others claims to supremacy? The problem is, there are 45,000+ versions of the fuckwittery all claiming the same and no one interpretation takes precedence unfortunately, hence the number of flavours of the cult.

          Out of curiosity, which flavour of the cult is it that you think has the right way of things?

        • busterggi

          BTW, Europeans had recast Jesus the Jew as a blue-eyed European for centuries before Hitler vcame along.

        • adam

          //

        • Myna A.

          I think he grew a fuller beard in the 6th century and turned white around the 14th. It’s been a long, strange trip for the Jesus journey.

        • adam

          ” How could he love Jesus Christ, a Jew?”

          From Martin Luther, you know the guy on whose birthday that Krystallnacht was performed to demonstrate their ‘christianity”?

        • adam

          “How could he love Jesus Christ, a Jew? ”

          “Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who too up
          His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it’s certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore– of a whore and a Roman soldier.The decisive falsification of Jesus’s
          doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean’s object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that’s why the Jews liquidated Him.
          -Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76]”

        • Agabu

          “When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” (Hitler’s Tabletalk 13 December 1941)

        • adam

          Ahh, from “Tabletalk” I see….

          Are you sure you are reading the correct translation?

        • Agabu

          Excuses, excuses nothing but excuses.

        • adam

          No, excuses, just more dishonest christian apologetics.

          “Christianity could not content itself with building up its own
          altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Great methodology. You accept any quote attributed to Hitler as long as it seems to be anti-christian. Never mind that he from 1933 on actively promoted so called Positive Christianity and outlawed atheism.

        • adam

          Just another Liar for Jesus…

        • Agabu

          Oh I don’t dismiss the quotes. I just think in the context of history, Hitler was a propagandist and pandered to the masses. When much of the population believes in God, he’d say anything to win them over to his ideology. Typical politician in that regard. In reality he hated Christianity towards the end of his life.

        • adam

          ” In reality he hated Christianity towards the end of his life. ”

          Nope, you are using fraudulent Table Talk quotes.” In reality he hated Christianity towards the end of his life. ”

          Hitler’s Table Talk

          Those who deny Hitler as a Christian will invariably find
          the recorded table talk conversations of Hitler from 1941 to 1944 as incontrovertible evidence that he could not have been a Christian. The source usually comes from the English translation (from a French translation) edition by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper.

          The table-talk has Hitler saying such things such as: “I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .”, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity”.
          The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version
          that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

          Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious
          sense. But the problems with using Hitler’s table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler’s apostasy are manyfold:

          http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

          Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the
          Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who too up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it’s certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore– of a whore and a Roman soldier.The decisive falsification of Jesus’s doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work
          with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean’s object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that’s why the Jews liquidated Him.
          -Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76]

        • busterggi

          So how long have you been psychic?

        • Agabu

          For as long as I could remember. True story. Bwaahaha!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah…you are working hard on achieving the accreditation in Bob’s inference…

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/5b/e4/76/5be47655b271e5b3adb79d88835fdefb.jpg

        • adam

          yes, we see your ‘truth’ displayed by false witness…

          But then again, at least the bible says nothing about lying…

        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming your methodology: when Hitler claims he was a christian it’s propaganda, when dishonest people like Speer and Bormann attribute anti-christian statements to Hitler they tell the truth.
          Brilliant.

        • adam

          Lying for Jesus.

          I mean without it Jesus and his ‘dad’ look so much like thuggish monsters.

        • Ignorant Amos

          When much of the population believes in God, he’d say anything to win them over to his ideology. Typical politician in that regard.

          But not Stalin?

          Spoiiiinnnng!

          So one tyrannical atheist murders millions through the use of concession and the other by tyranny? But both definitely because of their atheism, right?

          Why does this apply to the lack of belief in gods, but when belief in gods is pushed as the reason a religious tyrant/pope killed millions, it’s all about the individuals involved? Hypocrisy much?

          You’re a wee bit of a wooden one.

        • Agabu

          It is all about the individuals involved and what they believe. For those that have slaughtered in the name of Christ or God, biblical Christianity doesn’t endorse them at all, the commandment such as “do not murder” testifies against them. If you kill and you happen to be an atheist, your individual atheism is culpable. There’s no Bible for you to appeal to to show that it isn’t culpable. You can tell me you as an atheist wouldn’t do that. But thats just you and your individual atheism. Stalin’s atheism led him to murder people and is therefore part of why he killed his multiplied millions of people.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Like I said, a wee bit of a wooden one.

        • Agabu

          Not at all. The straws you’re grasping at are the real problem here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Let me help you out, you seem not to have read your scripture and it is making you a bit retarded here.

          You said…

          It is all about the individuals involved and what they believe.

          Yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. Don’t tar everyone with the same brush sort of philosophy, you did mean that, right?

          I get it, but then ya fucked it all up.

          For those that have slaughtered in the name of Christ or God, biblical Christianity doesn’t endorse them at all, the commandment such as “do not murder” testifies against.

          First, define “biblical Christianity”?

          The commandment you cite is not as clear cut as you’d like to portray. But I see you are being selective in word choice.

          Do you consider incest, bearing false witness on a capital charge, adultery, idolatry, having sexual relations with a member of the same sex, etc. along with unlawful killing, which itself is decided independently from culture to culture, ergo subjective, worthy of the death penalty?

          A couple of many passages…

          But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me.” Luke 19:27

          Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. Acts 3:23

          If you kill and you happen to be an atheist, your individual atheism is culpable.

          So, one’s individual-not-believing-gods-existence-because-of-the-lack-of-convincing-evidence is to blame for the killing, right?

          Let’s grant you that hypothesis for one hypothetical moment. Then what ta fuck has the killing got to do with every other atheists individual-not-believing-gods-existence-because-of-the-lack-of-convincing-evidence?

          You are bug nutty bat shit crazy.

          There’s no Bible for you to appeal to to show that it isn’t culpable.

          So you need a holy text to appeal to to show you culpability? Are you on crack?

          You can tell me you as an atheist wouldn’t do that. But thats just you and your individual atheism. Stalin’s atheism led him to murder people and is therefore part of why he killed his multiplied millions of people.

          Yeah, even the shite that your nonsense comment is, what is your point in bringing it up if it has nothing to do with every other individual atheist and their atheism?

          Doesn’t work does it?

          Stalin was a cunt, even if his individual atheism was the root cause, it wasn’t, but why would that be relevant to any other atheist?

          God believing Christian killers belief in God not to blame for their killing, even when they claim it is the reason. Christians and God is off the hook.

          Non God believing killers belief in no God is to blame for their killing. All non believers in God guilty by association of their non belief in gods.

          Defo a wooden one.

        • Agabu

          Your analytical gyrations to escape the hangman’s noose upon which individual atheism is culpable is still a lamentable failure. Since different atheists believe in different things, they have to make up stuff as they go along to suit their beliefs according to them as individuals. With no central text, it’s just do as you see fit in your own eyes. Stalin did exactly just that, and allowed religion when it was useful to his atheistic purposes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are so asinine with just one head…the religious mind virus has you well and truly fecked.

          With no central text, it’s just do as you see fit in your own eyes.

          How has that been working out so far for those with a central text to keep them right and true, oh wooden one?

          http://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

          Atheists Now Make Up 0.1% of the Federal Prison Population

        • Myna A.

          Since different atheists believe in different things, they have to make up stuff as they go along to suit their beliefs according to them as individuals.

          You are confusing atheism…a lack of belief in a single or plural gods…or maybe just yours…with the 45,000 Christian denominations (Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2014) who can’t make up their minds over who speaks for Jesus correctly with one central text to point to.

          Instead of being the source of comic relief here, why don’t you go and unite your Christian brethren?

        • busterggi

          Myna, do you know how hard it is to keep various Christian cults from killing each other? Its only a very recent developement.

        • Myna A.

          Thank the powers that be for secularism.

        • MNb

          “With no central text, it’s just do as you see fit in your own eyes.”
          Eeehhh Stalin’s Soviet Union totally had a central text. It’s called Das Kapital. It had a bit more than “there is no god”. Today many atheists don’t accept Das Kapital anymore than buddhists accept the Bible.
          Plus what Myna wrote.

        • adam

          ” the commandment such as “do not murder” testifies against.”

          But according to YOU, its not murder, but JUSTICE

        • Agabu

          Yeah, when God rightly punishes people for their wickedness.

        • adam

          And that wickedness was:

          Political

        • Ignorant Amos

          The double-standards and hypocrisy of the theist knows no bounds, does it?

        • adam

          Dishonest gods breed dishonest worshipers.

          This is the VERY BEST that ‘faith’ allows them to reason.

        • MNb

          I disagree. Dishonest worshipers like Agabu breed dishonest gods.

        • epeeist

          In reality he hated Christianity towards the end of his life

          Which is why of course the RCC excommunicated him.

          Oh wait, they didn’t.

        • adam

          Apparently, THAT is the best that YOUR faith provides you for.

        • MNb

          “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.”
          Speech, 1922.

          “By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society.”
          Speech for the Reichstag, 1933, introducing an anti-atheist law.

          “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
          Speech, 1933.

          “God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work.”
          Radio speech, January 1945.

          The Table Talks you refer to are partly fraudulous.

          http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

        • Agabu

          Ah, the fruits of atheism.

          “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense”-Joseph Stalin

          and also

          “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”-Joseph Stalin

        • epeeist

          The usual logic fail, Stalin was a monster there is no doubt about it, however just because he killed so many doesn’t mean that he did it in the cause of atheism.

          One also has to add, just work out what percentage of the world’s population Stalin killed then work out what percentage your god killed in the purported Noachic flood.

        • Agabu

          So Stalin killed millions of people not because of what he believed? So now you have to cherry pick what does & doesn’t apply to the atrocities he committed? So everything else applies except for his anti God stance? How convenient of you.

          And yes, God, the Creator of everything, JUSTLY killed millions in the flood & MERCIFULLY spared 8 people in the flood. If you made em, you own em and can do as seems best to you according to your wisdom, righteousness & grace. I miss the part where that makes God a monster according to a mere creature such as yourself. Stalin killed people he didn’t make, and treated them like he had rights to them. The evil man. He’s dead now. God sorted him out. The good and awesome being He is.

        • busterggi

          ” If you made em, you own em and can do as seems best to you”

          Then why didn’t he make them right in the first place? Damned fickle or a crappy creator or both?

        • Agabu

          He did make em right pure and simple. THEY screwed up. Damn rebels. We’re all damned rebels. And you evidence this brilliantly by sitting in judgment over the Creator like He’s gotta answer to you.

        • MNb

          “We’re all damned rebels.”
          Exactly. You christians apologists all rebels – for instance by lying. About for instance Hitler being the fruit of atheism.
          Thanks for confirming.

        • adam

          “And you evidence this brilliantly by sitting in judgment over the Creator like He’s gotta answer to you.”

          It SHOULD answer to people with better morals that itself.

        • Agabu

          If it’s beneath them, of course it should. But the true God is beneath no man, and so doesn’t have to answer to any human being.

        • adam

          “But the true God is beneath no man, ”

          It certainly is as the IMAGINARY creation of men.

        • MNb

          Your true god isn’t above no man either, nor to the left or right, nor in front or behind.
          Your true god isn’t.

        • Agabu

          Saying it doesn’t make Him go away. You’re talking about Him. Ah, Lord God! He’s still sitting pretty on His cosmic throne doing what He does best : Running this whole show.

        • busterggi

          And doing a lousy job at it according to his own book.

        • Greg G.

          Saying “your god isn’t” doesn’t make your belief go away but your ability to fool yourself doesn’t make your god existent either.

        • Agabu

          God doesn’t exist because anyone believes it. He exists whether we believe it or not. Complaints about no alleged evidence are just that, complaints that ignore the evidence of the universe and everything in it.

        • Michael Neville

          You have yet to show any connection between the real universe and your fictional, imaginary, unreal god. So what’s your evidence that your god did anything with the universe?

        • adam

          “God doesn’t exist because anyone believes it.”

          Yep.

          Once everyone who believes dies or ceases to belief to the “God” dies, just like every God before it.

        • Myna A.

          Indeed. And it is projected that by 2050, Islam will override Christianity’s numbers. The two are already neck and neck. Other faith systems or those unaffiliated with any religion will remain relatively stable in percentage

          [Ed.]

        • MNb

          God doesn’t exist because anyone believes it. He doesn’t exist whether we believe it or not. Complaints about atheists asking for evidence are just that, complaints that refuse to demonstrate how our Universe and everything in it is exactly evidence for any god.

        • MNb

          Saying it doesn’t poof your true god into existence either.
          Still that’s exactly what you do in this comment of yours: nothing but you just saying.

          Question: how do you your true god is sitting on a cosmic throne? Why not leaning back against a cosmic wall?
          If you can’t answer this one you have the first reason why your god isn’t.

        • adam

          ” He’s still sitting pretty on His cosmic throne doing what He does best : Running this whole show.”

        • Michael Neville

          And your evidence for this nonsense is what?

        • Agabu

          The universe and everything in it is my evidence against the nonsense that there is no God. What’s yours that there isn’t? Appeals to Santa & the flying spaghetti monster? Get real.

        • Greg G.

          You are appealing to Genesis, an ancient compilation of contradictions.

        • Agabu

          Genesis confirms what the universe says about itself, it was created by something with the requisite capabilities, knowledge and wisdom.

        • Michael Neville

          No it doesn’t.

          Hey, if you can argue by assertion so can I.

        • Agabu

          You’ve already being doing that o wise one. Except it’s been assertions with zero evidence.

        • Michael Neville

          Exactly, you’ve shown zero evidence that your god exists, let alone has any connection with the universe.

        • Myna A.

          …by something with the requisite capabilities, knowledge and wisdom.

          Something?

          Thought you said it was your god.

        • adam

          Genesis cant even get out of its own way, moreless confirm anything

        • Greg G.

          The world is indifferent to life and the rest of the universe is hostile to it. The most beautiful sunset might be the result of storm over the horizon where people are crying in agony while you are oohing and aahing. Doesn’t look like something a god worth worshiping would create.

        • Myna A.

          The world is indifferent to life and the rest of the universe is hostile to it.

          This is the reality that story shields us from.

          The most beautiful sunset might be the result of storm over the horizon where people are crying in agony while you are oohing and aahing.

          …or sulpher from bombs, a wildfire or a volcanic eruption. People need to take a pause from their conceit for just a moment.

          Doesn’t look like something a god worth worshiping would create.

          It goes back to the illusion of story. The grand bargain. If the worshiper worships, then the self, the community, will receive shelter from the storm, the drought, the fire, the flood, the conqueror, the madman. When there comes no shelter, go back to story: it is punishment or a curse or the will of gods who have designed something better just around the bend.

          The author, Anne Lamott, wrote: “There is almost nothing outside of you that will help in any kind of lasting way, unless you are waiting for an organ. This is the most horrible truth.”

        • Pofarmer

          Feel like a challenge? This line is kind of your specialty.

          http://www.strangenotions.com/learning-morality-from-bill-and-ted/#comment-2866986076

          Oh, and I’m banned.

        • adam

          Thanks.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • adam

          Banned?
          For what?
          Heresy or blasphemy?

          I am still posting

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s a long story…there is at least 6 of us posting here that got banhammered from that vipers den.

          On the plus side, it showed the theist blogger Brandon Vogt up for the nefarious cockwombling dirtbag he is and it spawned http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.co.uk/

          In Jan 2014 the Catholic blog/debate site “Strange Notions”, which had expressly invited debate from atheists, banned many of its most prominent atheist commenters (including Andrew G., the owner of this blog) and deleted over a thousand of their comments. They also deleted all discussion of the incident.

          For now, the posts labelled “Estranged Notions” are being offered as an alternative venue for discussion.

          There was a plethora of excuses offered for the cull of the atheists who far outweighed the theist contribution in number and quality and of course the theist arguments being presented were getting decimated right, left and centre. Most of the more prominent atheists went on two night of the long knives rub outs.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh…aye, the nail in my coffin there was the mentioning of the popes sexing chair, the sedes stercoraria, but it was a straw that broke the camels back. When one is being a bit of a thorn, an accident has to befall one. On a couple of occasions a left Vogt with egg on his puss, he didn’t like that much.

        • adam

          I was posting to an article on the Satanic Temple, I think an Alaskan paper.

          Obviously pickuped up a bunch of slack from christian ‘victims’, who turned nasty on me.

          When they started claiming they were ‘through with me’ and my kind, I politely thanked them for witnessing their ‘faith’ to me, and for their ‘christian’ hospitality.

          Priceless

        • Greg G.

          I noticed that Mike became Brave Sir Robin.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t do it mate….don’t venture to that place which Po throws the gauntlet. As epeeist is prone to quote, GBS…

          http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-learned-long-ago-never-to-wrestle-with-a-pig-you-get-dirty-and-besides-the-pig-likes-george-bernard-shaw-26-83-50.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Too late. I found MNb and adam already there.

          I threw out my argument that suffering is incompatible with a benevolent omnipotence.

          Mike ran from it but has tried to argue that suffering is because of the fall.

          LHRMSCBrown has tried obfuscation to make it more complex. I keep trying to bring him back down to earth.

        • Pofarmer

          Ah, the fall, yes of course, the Universal excuse.

          What of suffering before the fall? Archaeology shows plenty of it? species dying out en masse, etc, etc. Is there some Evidence that there was no suffering before the fall?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah fer feck sake…now I’m gonna have ta go lurk at that midden of a place.

        • Greg G.

          What do I have to do to get banned there?

        • Pofarmer

          Be effective.

        • Greg G.

          Alphabet Soup Brown has suggested I go to Non-Christian blogs. He has interacted with me a lot without addressing the argument with anything but strawmen and distraction. I told him I would respond to him less if he didn’t respond to me.

        • Pofarmer

          It ain’t his blog, first off. And Secondly, he’s a wanker.

        • Pofarmer

          And you know as well as I do what he’s doing. He’s trying very hard not to give you a definition to argue against, while saying that none of your arguments affect his God. Just an elongated No True Scotsman.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s a lot harder now than it was at the get go… mostly because very few these days give a fuck about the shit that goes on there….. including Vogt, who has been promoted to the bigger picture, Google is your friend, hence his reluctancy to fuck people over like the good Christian he is.

          An antipodean internet friend couldn’t get banned no matter how hard he tried…Michael Murray…or fall foul of the rules should I say. The Teflon atheist that he is…you can witness his antics at both SN and EN for some great craic if ya can spend the time and be bothered to peruse.

        • Pofarmer

          Brown, and those like him, WLC and Ed Fesser come to mind. Simply try to make problems so complex that you throw in the towell.

        • Agabu

          And yet here you are to write about it as a living breathing entity whose life is being propped up by forces friendly to life.

        • Myna A.

          Your comfort, your literacy, is a product of human forces, not the natural world. If you had lived a hundred years ago and were not part of the aristocracy, you would see how appalling life can actually be. Hell, you don’t even have to go back in history. Visit a Third World country. Visit the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. You are shielded from the reality of life dependent on the earth by modern technology.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Agabu lives in white picket fence world.

        • Greg G.

          I am descended from a long line of ancestors that happened to survive changing conditions on a thin veneer of a planet where I could not survive seven miles up or several miles down.

        • MNb

          That’s even sillier than a fly landing on the White House claiming that the forces that build it are friendly to resting places for flies.

        • MNb

          Really?

          Genesis 1:1 says Heaven and Earth are created at the same time.
          Our Universe says it’s 13,7 billion of years old; the Earth 4,5 billion of years old.

          Genesis 1:17 says: the stars are in the sky to give light upon the Earth.
          Our Universe says: the vast majority of the stars don’t give any light upon Earth at all – they are not visible.

          Genesis 1:25-27 says: humans are created after all the other animals.
          Genesis 2:18-19 says: all the other animals were created after humans.
          Our Universe says: after the humans came around several other species of animals appeared.

          Genesis 2:18-22 says: first was man created, then women from his rib.
          Our Universe says: men and woman always lived along. Men have the same amount of ribs as women.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Did ya ever get the feeling ya were wasting yer time?

        • MNb

          Almost every time I play chess or write stuff on internet. It’s most often a pleasant feeling.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Agabu

          Yes, really. Your clumsy handling of the opening verses of Genesis is lamentable. Where does Genesis say God created heaven and earth at the same time? Didn’t you notice the sequence of initial creation of the universe and the progressive ordering of the earth starting in verse 2? God does things in sequence and not all at the same time as you allege. Your mangling of the biblical text betrays you.

        • Myna A.

          But you said in your Step 2: The universe and everything in it began to exist in the first ever moment.

          That is not sequence, that is in the first moment, no? At least get your stories straight.

        • MR

          And they wonder why we think they’re full of shit. Seat of your pants theology. Believe whatever you have to believe in order to keep on believing. Even if you have to contradict yourself.

          Agabu: Your clumsy handling of the opening verses of Genesis is lamentable…. Your mangling of the biblical text betrays you.

          Hey, Ag, your clumsy handling of your own arguments is laughable and your self-contradiction betrays you!

        • Myna A.

          Seat of your pants theology

          Oh, that is so perfect!

        • MR

          Ah, thanks, but really kudos to you for exposing his absurdity.

        • Myna A.

          It was a collective effort, to be sure, but the seat-of-your pants-theology truly fits so many of the Christians I see commenting here and at other places, even on their own forums. Don’t have an answer, just make one up.

          Again, the term was quite perfect. 🙂

        • MNb

          Sure it was a collective effort, but you are still the one who scored the goal.

        • MNb

          This is why I enjoy you having around – I totally had missed this.

        • Greg G.

          Genesis 1:1
          1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

          Did you forget that verse?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or maybe just too stupid to understand what it means.

          Mind you, get those magic god-specs on and suddenly the words mean whatever ta fuck one wants them to mean, simples.

        • MNb

          “Where does Genesis say God created heaven and earth at the same time?”
          I already indicated: Gen. 1:1. It says “In the beginning.”
          At the beginning of the 100 m finals at the Olympics and WCh all participants start at the same time. At the beginning of a chess opening White moves – not Black.
          Thanks for neglecting the other Bible quotes.
          The only thing that is confirmed is your dishonesty. That speaks volumes about the intellectual and ethical poverty of your belief system. Don’t worry – it suits us well.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Where does it say God created the universe?

          Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t. Because the writers of the book were restricted by the ignorance of the time.

          You really are a silly pants.

        • Kodie

          Genesis is an origin myth, invented as a story to explain what was inexplicable. I can see you prefer to close off to modernity and stick with primitive thinking, and shove it down everyone’s throat. No thanks, there isn’t really a need for it anymore. We have better and finer answers now, and pretending you know anything with that myth is not superior to not knowing and admitting it. Genesis invented the character of god, and the rest of the bible embellishes the myth, in addition to further cultures flat-out making up new stories and pinning it to a myth from their past.

          What I really don’t understand is why people like you think you have anything more there than a myth. It’s obviously a myth. You have to be intentionally stupid not to see it.

        • Michael Neville

          You have yet to show any connection between the universe and any gods, let alone your pet deity.

        • Myna A.

          Exactly so. It’s all about Agabu and his merry dance. He fails to realize that aside from reality, science, history and the human propensity for story, he, alone, is a good enough reason to toss out the Christian belief card.

        • Agabu

          I have. But I’ll humor you one more time. The universe and everything in it is evidence for God’s existence. You may deny that God exists, but the universe and everything in it doesn’t. It announces it loud and clear. One would have to be dense to not get it, or just try to hold down the ball from coming to the surface because one doesn’t want it to be true. I just want to do things my way. Not God’s way. Aha, that sounds pretty much like you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          How do you know.

        • Michael Neville

          No, you silly twit, you have not shown evidence for your god’s existence. You point at the universe, which everyone here admits exists, and then wave your hand while shouting “GOD!” It doesn’t work that way. You have to show that your god has any connection with the universe. You just saying so isn’t evidence of anything but your own blind ignorance.

        • Agabu

          It does work that way my overly sensitive worked up friend.

          Step 1: The universe and everything in it exists. It

          Step 2: The universe and everything in it began to exist in the first ever moment.

          Step 3: What brought the universe and everything in it into existence is its Creator.

          Step 4: The Creator of the universe is distinct from the universe, and must therefore not be confused with it.

          Step 5: The Creator of the universe is of a different nature from the universe.

          Step 6: The Creator is super-nature (i.e. not created nature), while the universe is physical nature (i.e. created nature).

          Step 7: The Creator’s super-nature is divine nature as distinct from physical nature. In other words, the Creator is supernatural.

          Step 8: The Creator is supernatural because He has real existence of a higher degree and quality than that of the universe and everything in it.

          Step 9: The Creator isn’t like anything anywhere in the universe. The Creator exercises authority over the universe; transcends the universe; is greater than the universe; rightly and responsibly keeps the universe going; and is invested in making it all work like its supposed to.

          Step 10: The universe as creation says certain things about its maker.

          Step 11: The universe operates by discernible laws. This shows that it was intended to function a certain way. This strongly suggests that the Creator intentionally made the universe to operate according the laws he fixed up for it.

          Step 12: The universe is underwritten with laws as a matter of “public” record. This shows that the Creator formally “imprinted” laws that could be read by intelligent moral agents.

          Step 13: The laws of the universe are conferred upon it as rules to bring about certain actions/effects, like planetary and starry movements or changing seasons and such. This shows that the Creator rules the universe by meaningful instructions.

          Step 14: The universe works the way it does by design because many things work with purpose. This shows that the Creator has control over it, and set its various processes in motion.

          Step 15: The universe is a complex piece of physical hardware with incredible sights and sounds, and awe-inspiring phenomena. This shows that the Creator is greatly to be feared and revered.

          Step 16: The universe is ruled by the Creator by decree by virtue of the divine and royal prerogative without the approval or consent of anyone or anything. This shows that the Creator answers to no one for the way He runs this show, and is at nothing’s beck and call.

          Step 17: The universe and everything in it is a precious thing. The Creator imbued it with meaning and purpose. This shows that everything happens for a reason, and there’s nothing in it that is useless or meaningless. It has value to its maker.

          Step 18: The God of the Bible fits this bill to a tee. In the beginning He created the universe.

          Step 19: The God of the Bible created everything by His sheer command out of nothing save for His living pulsating word that had the ability to make things happen. This living word is later revealed to be His Son who entered time and space as the man Jesus Christ. He lived, died and rose again.

          Step 20: The universe is held together and is kept going by the power of its maker, which is the Spirit of God. There’s no way the universe sustains itself. That would be circular reasoning. The Creator as starting point breaks up that inescapable illogic. Therefore, the “no God” hypothesis while interesting to those that claim it is the height of irrationality, and the reason why it will always remain a fringe idea.

          There’s plenty of evidence for God; the universe and everything in it. Just get to know how to read this awesome evidence right. Earnestly seek God with all due diligence, and I guarantee you will be found by Him in unique and surprising ways.

        • Michael Neville

          I will accept Step 1, the universe exists. After that there’s a whole bunch of assertions with no evidence to support them. What’s your evidence that a creator exists? Do you know about virtual particle creation or that the total energy of the universe may be zero? It is entirely possible that the universe created itself. So you have to show that a creator is necessary for the universe to exist. We’ll get to the next problem when you’ve shown the universe has a creator.

        • Agabu

          Funny how this response is ironically nothing but counter assertions with no real substance to it. I mean, are you even listening to yourself? It is entirely possible that the universe created itself? Don’t make me laugh. It is entirely possible that the universe created itself? Are you for real? This sort of irrationality floats around in your head as “reason?” Michael, Michael my man, don’t claim you don’t know what made the universe on the one hand and then claim probability about the universe creating itself on the other just to escape the logical force of God creating it. Good God man, if it’s entirely possible for the universe to create itself, one wonders why Michael couldn’t create himself. I’m sure you think it’s entirely possible.

        • busterggi

          So did god create himself or did he always exist just as the universe has always existed?

          And wtf was god doing for eternity before he supposedly created the universe?

        • Michael Neville

          First of all, godbot, I am not your man so knock that patronizing shit off. Secondly, you incredibly stupid lump of ignorance, you’re the one pretending there’s a “god” who “created” the universe. Since that’s your claim, it’s up to you to substantiate it. That’s a fancy way of saying “where’s the evidence?”

          Since you have no clue about what I was talking about when I mentioned virtual particles and the universe having zero energy, don’t even try to sneer at the concept that the universe could have created itself. There are cosmologists who have reason to believe that the universe did create itself. Certainly they have no reason to believe some magic sky pixie did it. You know why they reject your magic sky pixie? Because there’s no evidence that one even exists, let alone created anything.

          I didn’t create myself. My parents had sex and created me. When you reach puberty maybe your mommy will explain sex to you, but probably not.

        • MNb

          You’re lying again. MN doesn’t bring up any counter assertions. He asks several questions you refuse to answer and makes some suggestions you refuse to address. That they make you laugh only tells us that you have a bad sense of humour.

          “don’t claim you don’t know what made the universe on the one hand and then claim probability about the universe creating itself on the other”
          Liar. MN didn’t claim any such probability. He only pointed out that you haven’t ruled out that possibility. You don’t even try.

          “if it’s entirely possible for the universe to create itself, one wonders why Michael couldn’t create himself.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I stand corrected – you have a good sense of humour, but only when it’s unintentional.
          This is one of the worst analogies I have ever met.
          “If can Universe create itself then MN can create itself.” Yeah, a human being like MN is totally like a universe.

        • Myna A.

          Funny how it is that you rely totally on your own brain meanderings. You never cite science, you never cite philosophers, scholars, nothing to illustrate your responses are anything less than your imitation of stories told to you in the past or constructed out of your personal adventures in bible reading. It’s all about you and your own bloated logic.

        • Greg G.

          Step 2 is not necessarily so. Almost everything else is unevidenced theology. The rest is wrong. Does the universe operate by discernable laws? That has yet to be shown.

        • Myna A.

          The universe is held together and is kept going by the power of its maker, which is the Spirit of God.

          Gravity holds the universe together, Agabu. Gravity.

          There’s no way the universe sustains itself. That would be circular reasoning.

          No, it is not circular reasoning. I think you are in desperate need of some science courses.

          Your list is preciously naïve, Agabu, and it makes me imagine someone sitting at a table on a quiet afternoon, pondering existence through the very narrow lens of enchanted logic and Sunday school fables.

          You forget, as well, that most here come from a Christian background. They gave up your story and thus far you have brought no compelling evidence to convince anyone to return to the pews.

        • Greg G.

          Remember Desertphile. It’s GRAVITY!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your list is preciously naïve, Agabu, and it makes me imagine someone sitting at a table on a quiet afternoon, pondering existence through the very narrow lens of enchanted logic and Sunday school fables.

          http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/circular-reasoning.png

        • MNb

          @2: Doubtful. There may have been time before the Big Bang.
          @3: Non-sequitur. There is no reason (let alone evidence) to accept that an external creator, let alone an immaterial one, is necessary for bringing the Universe and everything in it into existence.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Kodie

          A list of redundant assertions. No steps. You don’t know how foolish you are.

        • MNb

          You haven’t. But I’ll humor you one more time. Our Universe and everything in it isn’t evidence for your god’s existence in any way. You may maintain that your god exists, but the universe and everything in it doesn’t support it. It remains silent on it. As the Dutch deconverted theologian Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis already remarked: deriving a divine world from our concrete one requires a salto mortale. One would have to be dense to not recognize that, or just try to hold down the ball from coming to the surface because one doesn’t want look and think clearly. You just want to do things your way and you call it “God’s way”. Aha, that’s you in a nutshell..

        • Susan

          I have.

          Not yet.

          The universe and everything in it is evidence for God’s exisence

          Then, you should be able to show a connection. What are you claiming and how do you support it?

          One would have to be dense to not get it.

          Ah, the Emperor’s New Clothes.

          I just want to do things my way. Not God’s way.

          No. Try again.

          You don’t have “God”. You have done exactly nothing to demonstrate that this “God” exists or has a way that I don’t want to follow.

          You’re just a human calling someone’s character into question because they don’t accept your assertions when you can’t show your work.

          This is how snake oil economics works.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, the Emperor’s New Clothes.

          My immediate thought also.

        • epeeist

          The universe and everything in it is evidence for God’s existence.

          Another logic fail. The universe and its contents is evidence for their existence. If you want to show that they were a product of your god then you have a lot more work to do:

          1. Demonstrate that the universe was actually created

          2. Demonstrate that the creator was a deity

          3. Demonstrate that the deity was the one you just happen to worship; and finally

          4. Demonstrate that this was all documented in the holy book of an obscure tribe

        • Ignorant Amos

          One would have to be dense to not get it,…

          And yet, here we all are in our density, pressing you to relieve us of our state of ignorance by showing us this obvious connection between the universe and any gods and you appear incapable.

          It’s almost as if the emperor hasn’t a stitch on him and you deny he is stark buck naked.

          Or maybe, just maybe, you are the pig thick dense one. Just sayin’.

        • Aram

          I’ll humour you and imagine the universe was made by a god and/or gods. Fine. But what makes you so sure it’s your god?

        • Kodie

          See, that’s not a connection. That’s you continuing to repeat the assertion. If you can’t tell the difference, there’s no confidence in anything you say meaning anything other than bullshit.

          If you only knew how far off you were, you’d be soooooo embarrassed. Lucky for you, god’s going to pummel the shit out of me for you.

        • MR

          The universe and everything in it is my evidence

          Great. You’ve got a hypothesis. Now walk us through the connections. What are the steps that show that a book written by a nomadic tribe millennia ago match up to the reality we see?

        • Michael Neville

          You’re the one claiming that the universe is your evidence for your god. It’s your job to show us the connection between the universe and your god.

        • Myna A.

          Saying it doesn’t make Him go away.

          And you saying it doesn’t make the Christian one exist.

          What will make you go away.

          He’s still sitting pretty on His cosmic throne doing what He does best : Running this whole show.

          Ooooo, sounds sparkly!

        • Agabu

          If you can’t handle the heat no more, I’ll go away now. Nice chatting with you tho.

        • Myna A.

          Hey, you walked in the door. It’s still open. You can dance out anytime.

        • MR

          If you can’t handle the heat, he’ll go away. Ha!

        • Myna A.

          I know, right? But maybe he has wandered away now to find a mirror in which to gaze.

        • Susan

          Ooooo, sounds sparkly!

          It’s infinitely better.

          It’s the Ground of All Sparkliness

          It’s the Perfect Sparkly Form from which all contingently sparkly stuff has its spark actualized.

          It’s the Spark beyond which no other Spark can Sparkle.

        • Myna A.

          Ahhh, and thus this sparkle resides just beyond the rainbow. Just beyond where the little ponies jump with glee.

          The sparkle!

          Crap…

        • Myna A.

          Oh geesh. There were crap images on the other videos at the end of the Glinda and Dorothy in Oz sparkle!

          I’ll try some different sparkle.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8At8zfh_o3E

        • MNb

          Tchaikovsky is my favourite composer, but is this composition cheesy. I vastly prefer the first act.
          Still thanks to you two for remedying my early morning mood.

        • adam

          “Saying it doesn’t make Him go away.”

          Go away from where, your imagination?
          So?

        • MR

          That’s the problem. He doesn’t answer at all.

        • Myna A.

          And you evidence this brilliantly by sitting in judgment over the Creator like He’s gotta answer to you.

          But you, as ambassador, feel free to judge.

        • busterggi

          My parents are dead, I have no creators left to answer to, particularly no imaginary magic giants in the sky.

        • Agabu

          Good for you, dispense with those imaginary giants in the sky, and trust in the true God who made the universe.

        • adam

          “dispense with those imaginary giants in the sky, and trust in the true God who made the universe. ”

          As soon as one of you can demonstrate that such a “God” is not IMAGINARY…

        • Myna A.

          As soon as one of you can demonstrate that such a “God” is not IMAGINARY…

          For which we all wait with bated breath.

          Then again, we have Agabu, here, as heaven’s ambassador. What more demonstration do you need?

        • Agabu

          Oh my, I’m so flattered right now. Thanks for the heaven’s ambassador title Myna. Love it. I’ll try to think up one for you. Hmmm…

        • Myna A.

          No need to thank me. You gave it to yourself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A still prefer wooden one maself though.

        • Myna A.

          I’ve got to admit that is a good one, IA.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Definition of a wooden one…as thick as two short planks and half as useful.

          http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/as-thick-as-two-short-planks.html

        • MNb

          Ambassador of reason fits Myna.
          It doesn’t fit you.

        • Agabu

          Nice try. Pass

        • Agabu

          Imaginary gods can’t create anything. Duh! They are imaginary. The true God on the other hand did create this awesome piece of physical hardware we call the universe. He invented it, and by extension you & me.

        • adam

          “The true God on the other hand did create this awesome piece of physical hardware we call the universe. ”

          Only in your IMAGINATION.

        • Agabu

          Sure, you like to IMAGINE He didn’t.

        • adam

          He?

          How do you know YOUR ‘God’ has a penis?

        • adam

          IMAGINE what?

          You’ve FAILED to demonstrate that YOUR “God” is anything but IMAGINARY….

        • Agabu

          Your blinders got you thinking up all sorts of imaginary things. Whatever works for you in keeping God out of your life.

        • adam

          Why would I want an IMAGINARY ‘God’ in my life?

          I grew out of Santa when I was a child.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc82d6af9e07eb401aa77e1546319319a929e471351fafb48aa1425a2671d3b1.jpg

        • Agabu

          Only to grow into the “no God” fairytale.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04570f3531aa4e675333fdcce29973e95d6ad5b518125333d607badb96b99c03.png

          Laughable….

          But OBVIOUSLY, the best your ‘faith’ prepares you for.

        • Myna A.

          As opposed to the Yahweh fairy-tale.

        • Myna A.

          Your blinders got you thinking up all sorts of imaginary things. Whatever works for you in keeping God out of in your life.

          Funny how that works with a little nip and tuck. Just like a clear glass reflection.

        • MNb

          Your blinders got you thinking up all sorts of imaginary things. Whatever works for you in keeping your true god, christ and the holy ghost (that’s three imaginary things that are supposed to be one imaginary thing) in your life.

        • adam

          I dont have to imagine anything.

        • MNb

          Your true god is also imaginary.

        • Michael Neville

          Of course you can produce evidence that your sadistic thug of a god isn’t as imaginary as all the other gods.

        • Agabu

          Sure, the universe & everything in it. What’s your evidence that He didn’t make it smart guy? Explain. ..

        • adam

          ” What’s your evidence that He didn’t make it smart guy?”

          Sure, the universe and everything in it.

          What’s your evidence that YOUR “God” made it?

        • Agabu

          I already called dibs on it copycat. I see you got nothing.

        • adam

          But you provided all the evidence you could, and it was still nothing.

        • Agabu

          Sure, the universe and everything in it is nothing. How rational.

        • adam

          But you havent demonstrated that YOUR “God” did anything or is anything but IMAGINARY…..

          jUst like Santa

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          The universe and everything in it is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your God was made up by scam artists to fleece superstitious shepherds.

        • Agabu

          What is this flying spaghetti monster? How did it create this awesome universe of ours? Explain…

        • Greg G.

          The FSM is something that explains everything any god claim can on exactly the same evidence. He created the universe by stretching out a noodly appendage over an unstable nothingness. Ten to the one hundreth power of virtual particles simultaneously came into being at once, simulatneously expanding and annihilating each other but leaving a residual number of particles that formed all the stars and gas clouds in all the galaxies of the universe. The superclusters of galaxies will continue to accelerate away from one another until they reach light speed when they will become invisible to one another. New universes will expand in the dark regions vacated by the superluminal galaxies, just as ours did between those universes that came before us.

        • Agabu

          Hmm…nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing. To have some kind of gathering place where you worship this flying spaghetti monster? I’m wondering why I’ve never heard of this religion adoring the virtues of a monster made from Italian cuisine.

        • epeeist

          Hmm…nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.

          Well at least it fits with the current best explanation for the for the formation of the the universe, something that your holy book does not.

          Of course one could posit other accounts of creation, for example by the (much more likely) Invisible Pink Unicorn (praise be upon her holy hooves), from the meeting of cold and heat at the junction between Niflheim and Muspelheim or the appearance of Erebus from Chaos. None of these provide an explanation that fits the facts, but there again neither does the biblical account.

        • MNb

          That’s because your religion made your thinking backward and numbed your perception.

          http://www.venganza.org/

          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523

          http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/11/18/utah-woman-wears-colander-for-drivers-license-photo-as-religious-statement/

          Every human being worships the flying spaghetti monster every time he/she eats pasta and/or drinks beer.

          Gathering places for worshiping en masse:

          https://cdn.evbuc.com/eventlogos/142286448/12725735200626447354941977337910o.jpg

          You can have a pastafarian marriage:

          http://www.newzealandnews.net/index.php/sid/241773511

          In case you are interested in reconverting:
          http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Pastafarian

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m wondering why I’ve never heard of this religion…

          Yeah, like you’d be that smart. Have you heard of every religion? Nope…nor even come close. Wise ta feck up silly pants.

          It’s Pastafarianism ya feckin’ dolt!

          Google is your friend.

          The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, after having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, came into the mainstream just a few years ago*.

          With millions, if not thousands, of devout worshipers, the Church of the FSM is widely considered a legitimate religion, even by its opponents – mostly fundamentalist Christians, who have accepted that our God has larger balls than theirs.

          http://www.venganza.org/

        • Greg G.

          Ramen!

        • I’m a believer now! I’ve been touched by his noodly appendage.

        • You first: explain how Yahweh created our awesome universe.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What is this YahwehJesus? How did it create this awesome universe of ours? Explain…

          FTFY

          BTW, it wasn’t the FSM that did it, it was Space Ponies…or was it physics…yeah, maybe it was just physics.

        • MNb

          In exactly the same way you think your supposed creator created our awesome universe.

        • Greg G.

          Pasta heaven has free beer. Pasta hell does, too, but the beer is warm.

        • And isn’t that just like the FSM? Hell isn’t as nice as heaven … but it’s really not that bad. What a guy!

        • Kodie

          You expect we’re so easily impressed as you are? You’re not making the connection, dope.

        • Kodie

          Dibs on what? The burden is on you to provide more evidence than just “look, it’s a universe, ok?” Yeah, and? Not the least of which is the dumb shit you keep saying, your very shallow beliefs, your very shallow expressions of that belief – NOT CONVINCING AT ALL. We can’t understand you, perhaps come up with an idea here. You don’t have an idea, you have a superstition, obviously.

        • Myna A.

          I already called dibs on it copycat.

          Ooo, ouch. Schoolyard lingo. Why, that’s meaner than a triple-dog dare ya!

        • Michael Neville

          We will all agree that the universe exists. Now provide some evidence that your imaginary god had anything to do with creating it.

        • Agabu

          Sure we agree that the universe exists. Now explain what brought it into existence. I say “God.” And you say,…

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t know. Which is much more honest than claiming an unevidenced creator did it.

        • I could say just about whatever I want, couldn’t I? I won’t have evidence for a creator god from another religion or that I would invent … but then that’s the game we’re playing. You wouldn’t either.

        • epeeist

          Now explain what brought it into existence. I say “God.”

          And hence you are making an ontological commitment. This being so the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate the truth of your claim. Over to you…

        • MNb

          I say quantum fluctuations.
          Thus far you have failed to point out
          a) how your goddiddid;
          b) which means he used;
          c) which procedures he followed.
          You just saying “goddiddid” and leaving it at that is not exactly evidence that your god had anything to do with the Universe coming into existence. According to your poor standard I could say as well that The Great Unnamed One shit our Universe into existence. It’s not any worse than YHWS’ Logos or Eru Iluvatar’s vocalizing.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MNb

          Where is your evidence that there are no unobservable fairies in my backyard tending my flowers, so that they blossom more beautifully? Explain ….

        • adam

          “What’s your evidence that He didn’t make it smart guy?”

        • Just woke up? You’re forgetting that the burden of proof is yours.

          Go.

        • Kodie

          You can’t explain. “God” is not an explanation, it is a superstitious observation.

        • MNb

          Your true god is one of those imaginary giants in the sky.

        • adam

          “He did make em right pure and simple.”

          Obviously NOT

          “THEY screwed up. ”

          Obviously NOT:

          “I will wipe from the face of the earth
          the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and
          the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made
          them.”

        • Michael Neville

          Since I’m a whole lot moral than your sadistic thug of a god I think I’m justified in judging him. But since your god is a figment of the imagination the situation of him judging me or vice versa won’t happen.

        • Agabu

          Dream on. He’s large and in charge and judgment against you is already a given, if you don’t humble yourself before Him.

        • adam

          “He’s large and in charge and judgment against you is already a given, if you don’t humble yourself before Him.”

          Yeah, Santa wont bring us presents, we understand.

          How childish.

        • Agabu

          No my young Padawan, Santa is imaginary. Real, God is.

        • Michael Neville

          There’s exactly the same evidence for Santa as for your god, i.e., zip point shit.

        • adam

          “Real, God is.”

          But then you would be able to demonstrate in reality, which you CAN’T, so it makes it just as IMAGINARY.

          Jesus is just Santa for adults who never grow up and accept responsibility for their own lives.

        • Got evidence?

        • epeeist

          Got evidence?

          Don’t be silly.

          Interesting to see the theists who arrive on your blog, lots of claims for evidence, some even claim to be scientists. But eventually, once their supposed claims have been shredded, they simply collapse into preaching.

        • MNb

          And still they keep on coming. After a few years I can’t remember two consecutive days without any theist showing up here.
          Apparently BobS knows where the sensitive spots are.

        • I’m in London, and I’m hoping to squeeze in some time to go to Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. Maybe I’ll find some quality argumentation there. I’m not getting much from our current crop of apologists.

        • Michael Neville

          One thing that every visitor to London should do is try the famous echo in the Reading Room of the British Museum.

        • Myna

          But eventually, once their supposed claims have been shredded, they simply collapse into preaching.

          If that isn’t the truth, or what. Agabu is currently on a hardcore role with that one.

        • MNb

          No my silly Agabu, your god is imaginary. Real, Santa is.
          I saw him myself, several times.

        • Myna A.

          No my young Padawan…

          Don’t be hijacking Jedi-speak now. I know it’s a Christian tradition to take what’s not theirs, but Jedi is sacred, see?

        • Michael Neville

          If your god does exist and I’m brought before him then he had better justify himself to me. According to your own propaganda your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. Despite all my faults, including killing other people, I’m a lot more moral than your depraved thug of a god.

        • Agabu

          Arrogance and insults aren’t doing you any favors here. But then again, that’s what spoiled little brats are all about. Always whining about how things should be their way even when they bump up against awesome authority.

        • adam

          “Always whining about how things should be their way even when they bump up against awesome authority.”

          No such authority has been demonstrated.

        • Michael Neville

          You are hardly the one to whine about arrogance.

        • MNb

          If that awesome authority you brag about favours you I’m glad he doesn’t favour me. Do you really think I’d enjoy to spend eternity in company of arrogant ignorants like you? That’s the very definition of Hell in my eyes.

        • Agabu

          You got that right. See. Now we’re getting somewhere.

        • Myna A.

          You got that right.

          What does MNb have right? That you are favored by your awesome authority? If you believe that, then your problem isn’t Christianity, it’s lunacy.

          Yea, yea, yea, I know, I know. You struck a bargain with your awesome authority. You scratch his back, he scratches yours.

        • Kodie

          You think an omnipotent, omniscient god, the “awesome authority”, needs a dumb piece of shit like you to tell us all the nonsense you know on his behalf? That’s how dumb you think you aren’t, but the things you believe are coming from your imagination, not reality. We live in reality, we not only don’t need god, we don’t find idiots like you convincing or threatening. It’s like god just can’t do anything because he doesn’t exist, it’s because of people like you that confirm my atheism by being so gullible and arrogant, without producing any credible argument or evidence for god. You just blather on total idiocy for days and days and days, threatening, bullying, acting like you know one damn thing, and you obviously don’t.

        • MNb

          Booooh.
          Not.
          Not.

        • Kodie

          You weak loser, you can’t cope with argument against your big imaginary god, so you think threatening us with his punishment will do any good. We don’t believe in that horseshit.

        • adam

          “He’s large and in charge”

          Yet, unobservable….amazing…

        • al kimeea

          Mysterious, even

        • Dys

          What’s truly funny is that Christians, including Agabu, are sitting in judgement over God as well (They tend not to realize it though). They’re just giving him a better valuation.

        • MNb

          Of course. “God is good” and “God is Love” and “Jesus is the perfect embodiment of agape” totally are moral judgments.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So Stalin killed millions of people not because of what he believed? So now you have to cherry pick what does & doesn’t apply to the atrocities he committed? So everything else applies except for his anti God stance? How convenient of you.

          Ah yes, The Atrocities Fallacy.

          You are getting your terms muddled up.

          Atheist and anti-theist.

          I could nearly understand your nonsense if Stalin was totally anti-God, i.e. anti-theist whatever, but how does that work? Considering…

          [D]uring World War II, Stalin eased up considerably on religion. He allowed for tens of thousands of Russian Orthodox churches to reopen, adopted an official policy of tolerance toward Muslims,6 and re-established the hierarchy of leadership in the Russian Orthodox Church.7 There were even rumors that Stalin had reconsidered his own personal relationship to religion when he took a “mysterious retreat” in 1941.

          Stalin was an ideologue and he used whatever tool necessary to seize and maintain power. Not believing in deities is not an ideology.

          In the contemporary West, we often assume that perpetrators of mass violence must be insane or irrational, but as Kotkin tells the story, Stalin was neither. And in its way, the idea of Stalin as a rational and extremely intelligent man, bolstered by an ideology sufficiently powerful to justify the deaths of many millions of people, is even more terrifying. It means we might want to take more seriously the pronouncements of the Russian politicians who have lately argued for the use of nuclear weapons against the Baltic states, or of the isis leaders who call for the deaths of all Christians and Jews. Just because their language sounds strange to us doesn’t mean that they, and those who follow them, don’t find it compelling, or that they won’t pursue their logic to its ultimate conclusion.

          http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/understanding-stalin/380786/

          At one point the belief that the Church and organised religion threatened Stalin’s control, was enough to persecute it, when religion was deemed to be a positive, it was allowed. Fuck all to do with not believing in gods, it was part of his ideology, i.e. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

          Why would you suppose not believing in God was a reason for killing off millions of people? Unless those doing the killing believed in a different god…or the same god, just of a different flavour of course?

        • Michael Neville

          I have never heard an atheist say, “Good old Joe Stalin, what a great guy he was, certainly someone to emulate!” But I have heard lots of Christians praise their god who was even more genocidal than Stalin.

        • MNb

          I have.

          Arnold Zweig.
          Pablo Neruda.
          Bertold Brecht.

          In The Netherlands a political leader:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Groot

        • Michael Neville

          The mind boggles.

        • Agabu

          Sure you haven’t. Why would a sod like you align with him. It’s bad for atheist business in trying to look good. He’s still in your “no God” camp tho.

        • Michael Neville

          And the Inquisition, the Crusades and the 30 Years War are in your “Goddist” camp. Doesn’t it make you feel proud to have Torquemada on your team?

        • Kodie

          Let’s not pretend Christianity didn’t spread all over Europe by ISIS-like militant terrorists. I love that they forget that part of it, that they think Christians are charitable, I mean, they aren’t tolerant now, we just live in a society where you yell, scream, post a big-dick cross on every mountain you can, whine about Christmas, don’t bake cakes or issue marriage licenses per the fucking law, and stock up on the biggest dick guns they legally can in knee-jerk reaction to lies about someone coming for all the guns. We get the occasional asshole Christian who kills people because they just can’t take it anymore, they can’t cope with reality, and they can’t wait for god to take care of it, never mind the stupid religious who just kill from religious negligence. We just don’t see Christianity bubbling up into violence, except for the rhetoric, the wars, encouraging our valuable young people to sign up to kill in the name of Jesus, waging religious wars for a secular country.

          I mean, religious differences in their imaginary gods and imaginary beliefs and imaginary threats, makes these assholes thirsty for blood, and if they could be honest, it’s not god dictating their mission, it’s themselves, it’s what they want, and what they feel. It’s not like stories in the bible where (so the story goes) a population is ordered directly from god to wipe people out because they are “wicked”. That is total tribal ignorance. War is really the only way they can continue to get those violent kicks, the waging a war bigger than earth, for god, because those people we judge to be wicked. They’re people. They have problems. We can’t begin to address those problems with violence. We’d rather spend a lot of money crushing them, or get the immediate rush of seratonin from crushing them today, and weep over the mother-fucking dumb sacrifices by the young people who voluntarily sign up for that fucking shit.

          I’m not trying to knock soldiering, but it comes down to making a poor choice in life over religious stupidity and getting what you pay for, being manipulated and too young, and sold a pile of bullshit while still in school, there’s a lot of blame to throw in every direction. When people get sad about a military volunteer returning in a box, or with his or her life and body and mind in total shambles, I wonder what they expected. You wish everyone could make it home, but sending them off on a mission with sketchy premises to begin with, I mean filing all Muslims alike, and not thinking a lot of those people are the same victims of the villainous ones as we are, then it’s a religious motive. Having a loved one die under that premise only makes the living resolve to make it worth one death by sending more people they don’t even know to die. Stupid and selfish and foolish and fucked up.

          But anyway, at home here among all the Christians, we get to survive mostly in a peaceful society with a lot of negativity and fear radiating out from Christianity, while it always feels like someone is going to snap and it’s going to cause a trend in violent Christian terrorism, not outliers, but really a panic among them.

        • al kimeea

          Funny that eh? Goddists never consider history prior to 1922. Never mention The Great War brought to us by the divine right of royalty.

          If it is mentioned, it is hand waved away – that was a different time and, of course, the magic of free will

        • Paul B. Lot

          The Great War, and it’s Awesome Sequel.

          Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jew-hatred stirred up by the Church(es)? Had nothing to do with the Final Solution.

        • al kimeea

          That sequel was started by atheists. Atheists who wrote extensively about how they were Christians doing God’s work while acknowledging the wonderful influence of Marty Luther

        • adam
        • al kimeea

          Ya, and that is just a distaste of Marty’s vitriolic antisemitism. That book outlines a 7 step plan to deal with Jewish people. A plan followed closely some 400 years later.

          But, ya know, history is just some shit that happened yesterday with zero bearing on how we got here.

          And besides, MLu, wrote beer drinking songs. Take that, antisemitism!

        • adam

          Yep, Kristallnacht was held on his birthday….

        • al kimeea

          Heh, I forgot about that. No doubt the christian patriots were drinking beer and singing MLu songs of how women are meant to die producing litters, because that’s all they’re good for.

          But, no connection, no. No thread of history to follow.

        • MNb

          That doesn’t go back far enough. Try the 4th Century, a couple of decades after christianity becoming state religion.

          http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1377-ambrose

          Of course a saint.

        • al kimeea

          b-b-b-but the saints were all nice people, like the albanian troll

        • Greg G.

          The War to End All Wars.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “The War to End All Wars: Giving Birth to Low-Intensity Conflicts and Rampant Terrorism for the Next Century as Native Populations Struggle with Systemic Inequality, Unlawfulness, and Corruption Left in the Wake of The “Great” Colonial Powers – Having Invaded, Occupied, and Plundered based on Their Conviction of God-Ordained Racial/Cultural Superiority – Ineptly Reshuffling the Borders and Balances of Power”

          Er….we might need to hire an editor to work on that title.

        • Michael Neville

          My father got to fight in the war after that. I got my chance two wars later.

        • MNb

          In addition: it was all politics, not religion.

        • adam

          ..

        • Kodie

          Well, to tell you the truth, god doesn’t even exist. You don’t have to believe it, but it’s true. You believe in nothing, you call it god and invent personal traits, intentions, and etc., but you don’t have a god, just like Stalin.

        • epeeist

          So Stalin killed millions of people not because of what he believed?

          Strangely enough Stalin might just have managed to believe more than one thing. Perhaps you could explain why he had members of the army, Politburo and NKVD killed.

          Let’s use your “logic” though shall we. Harry Truman was the person who gave the order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now given that Truman was a Southern Baptist he obviously did this in the cause of Christianity.

          And yes, God, the Creator of everything, JUSTLY killed millions in the flood & MERCIFULLY spared 8 people in the flood.

          Well let’s ignore the fact that the Noachic flood didn’t occur for the moment. Now the estimate of people that Stalin was directly responsible for killing was (neglecting those killed in combat with the Axis powers) was 30 million out of a population of 180 million or so. This is about 17%.

          At the time of the supposed global flood the earth’s human population was around 20 million. Your god kills all but 8, in other words 99.99996% of the world’s population with a similar percentage of animals and plants as collateral damage. Not only that but he doesn’t just vanish them or choose a humane way of killing them; instead he chooses drowning, a significantly nasty way of dying (not for nothing is simulated drowning classified as torture).

          There is a moral to the Noah story, but it isn’t the one that is put forward. The moral is that one shouldn’t trust the whims of the petty, genocidal and sadistic monster that is your god.

        • MNb
        • Ignorant Amos

          Name calling (a little less assholery and a little more terse, thoughtful analysis.);

          Hardly, but showing great potential.

          http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-there-is-no-real-direction-here-neither-lines-of-power-nor-cooperation-decisions-are-thomas-pynchon-35-69-83.jpg

    • Matthew46

      Catholic Cardinal and later Pope, Joseph Ratzinger stated this as to
      the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of
      our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated.
      …..
      Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.”

      Trinitarian Matthew 28:19 is also missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis.

      • Agabu

        Testimony for the authenticity of this verse in Matthew goes all the way back to circa 50 A.D.
        In the Didache, Chapter 7, we find instructions to baptize using the Trinitarian formula:

        “And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water”

        Didache, Chapter 7

        This document dates as early as 50 A.D., putting it earlier than many books of the New Testament and squarely in the Apostolic age. It’s repeated in 170 A.D. and circa 200 A.D. See:

        Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 9.2
        Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 17.1
        Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, 20.
        Also the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger was inaccurate, it really said:

        It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

        Thus the text that “comes from Rome” is the Creed, not the baptismal formula or the verse; and the authority cited is Matthew 28:19, which is referred to as “the words of Christ”.

        • Greg G.

          The Didache is thought to be written somewhere between 50 and 120 AD but that is the estimation for the original. That does not include any interpolations. If Matthew has been interpolated as seen by manuscript evidence, why wouldn’t the Didache also be interpolated? There is only one Greek copy that dates to 1056. A Latin copy of the first five chapters was also found, so it cannot support any of the passages that are similar to Matthew.

        • Agabu

          There are no interpolations in Matthew. If you have evidence of those please provide some. There simply is no textual basis for doubting the authenticity of say Matthew 28:19 (seeing as it is my go to Trinitarian text) as
          it stands written in all modern Bibles. The textual evidence without question or exception overwhelmingly and
          unanimously favors its inclusion. Bernard
          Henry Cuneo explains:

          To one who is at all
          acquainted with the present controversy regarding Mt. 28, 19, it comes as a
          distinct surprise that the evidence of the manuscripts and versions is
          overwhelmingly in favor of the authenticity of the passage. The verse as a
          whole is contained in all extant manuscripts and versions with the exception of
          Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetonianus and Bobiensis. These manuscripts are fragmentary in many parts. The Gospel of
          Matthew in Syr. Sinaiticus ends with chapter 28, verse 7; the rest of the
          Gospel has been lost [Cf. The Four Gospels in Syriac, Translated from the
          Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Bensley, Harris and Burkitt, 1894]. Curetonianus stops
          at chapter 23, verse 25 [Cf. Remains of a Very Antient [sic] Recension of the
          Four Gospels in Syriac, by W. Cureton, 1858; also Evangelion Da-Mepharresche,
          by F. C. Burkitt, 1904]. Bobiensis has nothing after chapter 15, verse 36 [Old
          Latin Biblical Texts No. II, by John Wordsworth, W. Sanday and H. J. White,
          Oxford, 1886].

        • Greg G.

          Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica 1.4 [W.J. Ferrar (1920) translation]

          This law going forth from Sion, different from the law enacted in the desert by Moses on Mount Sinai, what can it be but the word of the Gospel, “going forth from Sion” through our Saviour Jesus Christ, and going through all the nations? For it is plain that it was in Jerusalem and Mount Sion adjacent thereto, where our Lord and Saviour for the most part lived and taught, that the law of the new covenant began and from thence went forth and shone upon all, according to the commands which He gave his disciples when He said:

          “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.”

          Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19-20a. Eusebius’ copies of Matthew predate all of the Bibles you cite.

          The Trinitarian Bible verses are suspect. But the Unitarians are wrong, too. You should be a None-itarian.

        • Matthew46

          Greg, the idea of a literal son of God is a gentile concept – not a Jewish concept and wasn’t on the scene until after Paul and the gospels that followed it. Paul’s work wasn’t circulating as early as 50 AD – more like 70 AD and after and even then, his “gospel” didn’t take in Israel. He left for Rome in about 55-59 AD and it was then that Christianity took root and grew, organizing into the Catholic church. It was at Nicea in 325 AD, I believe, that the nature of Jesus was discussed and determined.

        • Matthew46

          Matthew had not yet been written in 50 AD, Agabu.
          .
          Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis.
          .
          Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. This would have been an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19:
          “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

          I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts,
          for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two
          Greek manuscripts of any age – one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex
          Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is
          incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
          which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions – one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.

          III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their
          controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity – a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not
          referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century.
          .
          And finally – it isn’t Jewish in concept. The concept of a literal son of God is absent in Judaic thinking and previous to Paul, Jesus world and that of the apostles who were all practicing Jews, this would have been sacrilage., As a Jew under the law, Jesus would not have claimed to have been a god nor did his followers believe him to be so. Ebionites, followers of the apostles, believed Jesus to be a man, not a god.

        • Mat. 28:19 is not shown missing from Sinaiticus, at least according to Wikipedia:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Contents

        • Matthew46

          I’ll keep checking on that. Meanwhile this is a good site dealing with the trinity in detail: http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html
          .
          Another site says: .”In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are GONE which contained the end of Matthew (F.C. Conybeare).”

          So that we have no MS. earlier than the 4th century, and in the case of these two earlier versions the end page of Matthew has been destroyed?