I laugh every time I see the "defense" that all who do not believe are "attempting to intentionally twist and skew" that which is twisted to begin with.

I guess if the religious cannot hold desperately to the belief that non believers are "out to get them or the religion" they might actually have to look at it as it really is.

and may you enlighten us with what has been intentionally twisted and skew? With what has been said here or with what's in the bible itself.

Ho ho...No need to cut paste, I agree in open that i am not a good man though i pray and wish to b good . But, how can a human deny this truth that open sex is bad /disguisting/disturbing and Islam on the other side is the best way of living and it's a matter of concern that these people of west have spread badness for long times now and it's is welcome that west needs Islam the most..

Ho ho...No need to cut paste, I agree in open that i am not a good man though i pray and wish to b good . But, how can a human deny this truth that open sex is bad /disguisting/disturbing and Islam on the other side is the best way of living and it's a matter of concern that these people of west have spread badness for long times now and it's is welcome that west needs Islam the most..

That would be no sacrifice at all. None whatsoever. The only way that could be considered a "sacrifice" is if Jesus had only one life to live. But if Jesus was the son of Yahweh then Jesus was not only eternal, but he also KNEW that he was eternal. Jesus wouldn't even have the ability to comprehend the meaning of human 'faith', before for Jesus the very idea of "faith" would be a concept he could not even experience.

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM". If you reject this as a pantheistic statement, then you must take it in the context of the personified Gods of this religion. In this context Jesus would be saying that he had existed from the very beginning of creation, he didn't just come into being when he was born into the physical world via Mary.

He would also know that after he physically died he would return to his spiritual state of being. Therefore this apparent "Sacrifice" of dropping by Earth for a mere 30 years would be a meaningless speck of "time" for Jesus. It could hardly be called a major "sacrifice".

Especially if Jesus was God (i.e. "I and the Father are One"). Again, if you refuse to take this in a pantheistic sense of Buddhism, then you must take it literally, meaning that Jesus and God are the same entity.

That being the case, then Jesus was nothing more than the "landlord" checking up on his zoo of human pets that he is obviously growing for the sole purpose of having them bow down and confess that he is their King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

You can hardly see his zoo-keeping duties as a "sacrifice". On the contrary, I'd say he doesn't spend nearly enough time maintaining his zoo as he should.

So you've got a very long way to impress me that the life of Jesus was some sort of "sacrifice" in and of itself. For Jesus, (assuming he was indeed God), that little speck of time spent on Earth would hardly have been any "sacrifice" at all.



The Crucifixion is the central theme of Christianity, any attempt to downplay that as being "The Sacrifice" is truly futile and nothing more than an act of desperation to try to distract from just how central it truly is to the religion.

Also, any God who "needs" to be loved is already a "needy" God.

You shouldn't have to "sacrifice" anything to express love.

That would be more like egotistical love. Like something a human would demand that you sacrifice something to "proof" that you love someone.

No one needs to sacrifice anything to prove they love me. I'll accept that they love me if they simply do me no harm. I'd make a great God.



I don't believe that the clergy of all these various forms of the Abrahamic Religions and multitudes of Christianities are twisting things to try to appease their own desires. I think it's pretty clear that they just disagree on what these fables mean.

Besides what you suggest would imply that all the Jews are wrong (purposefully wrong) simply because they have desires that they think a belief in Jesus will conflict with, etc.

That's absurd. Clearly they just don't buy it. That's all. They just don't feel that it fits into their original scriptures. They looked at all the points being claimed by the authors of the New Testament and simply renounce them as being wrong. That's all.

Ho ho...No need to cut paste, I agree in open that i am not a good man though i pray and wish to b good . But, how can a human deny this truth that open sex is bad /disguisting/disturbing and Islam on the other side is the best way of living and it's a matter of concern that these people of west have behaved like animals (sex on streets ,family sex so on..) and have spread badness for long times now and it's is welcome that west needs Islam the most..

Ho ho...No need to cut paste, I agree in open that i am not a good man though i pray and wish to b good . But, how can a human deny this truth that open sex is bad /disguisting/disturbing and Islam on the other side is the best way of living and it's a matter of concern that these people of west have behaved like animals (sex on streets ,family sex so on..) and have spread badness for long times now and it's is welcome that west needs Islam the most..

It's not the open sex that's disgusting as far as I can see. It's usually the total lack of responsibility that is disgusting. People procreating new life and not taking the responsibility to properly raise those new humans to adulthood. That's just downright irresponsible.

However, people who exhibit that kind of irresponsibility are most likely irresponsible in everything they do, not just in matters of sex.

There's nothing inherently wrong with sex.

Irresponsible people are the problem. Not sex.

let each find their own way,,,,humans have it in them to be egocentric and selfish and sometimes to the point of being dishonest or inconsiderate or outright violent,,,,,,,there is no religion that is going to change human nature so everyone needs to find the path that leads THEM to the best of their nature,,,

One need only follow your postings on Biblical contradictions to see this dynamic in play in all its glory. People have meticulously researched such contradictions and revealed them in plain English, only to have them dismissed summarily with a metaphorical wave of your hand. You then accuse THEM of twisting the words and skeweing context on the literal meanings of the passages. On that point, one may be assured YOUR judgement will be swift and arrogantly sure, with no reasoning or justification presented to back it up.

Not hard to understand, really, when one considers that Believers paint themselves in the corner by refusing to understand the difference between a book being _inspired_ by a god with one that has been _dictated_ through human sock puppets.

-Kerry O.

With Shiites killing Sunnis with abandon and vice versa? And women essentially being property? With people being trampled to death in stampedes during religious pilgrimages?

The West "needs" this?

I think not.


-Kerry O.

"Whosoever committeth sin

transgresseth also the law:

for sin is

the transgression

of the law."

1Jn 3:4

if your so tied up in thinking that anyone other than you "needs" islam, maybe you should go live with you own kind... it offends me when anyone starts pushing their religion on anyone else. i do not want any religion in my life, least of all islam...

Not one person has posted a contradiction on here that was truely a contradiction. Only because it seems to be that way when THAT person reads it or hears it, does NOT make it truely a contradiction. All the contradictions talked about here were substantially shown not to truely be contradictions. You know why? Because there are NO contradictions in the bible.

I think you're the only one that even noticed.

Well, that's YOUR story and totally understandable when told from the POV of someone who obviously has a considerable PERSONAL investment in the authority of Holy Writ. It's a fanatasism you share with the Muslims--insistence after insistence that your Book is the only "true" Book and that veracity improves with the number and vehemence of the Tellings.

Reminds me of what Mark Twain called Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon:

"Chloroform in print."

-Kerry O.

The Bible is full of flaws and inconsistencies. Here's a really vivid one about Judas:


Matt.27:5 And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts.1:18 Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

These both can't be true. One has Judas casting the reward money down, and the other had him purchasing a field with it. Plus he dies in different ways.

You might argue that these authors were mere men who clearly make tiny mistakes. However, these are the same people who claim to speak for Jesus decades after he died!

If they can't get the details right then why trust them to speak for Jesus "verbatim"?

These authors are clearly untrustworthy to get the story straight.

There are plenty of examples like this. Someone even wrote a book about these errors.


Here's another one from the Old Testament:


Lev.1

1. [10] And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

Lev.4

1. [23] Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:
2. [28] Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.

Lev.5

1. [6] And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

Lev.16

1. [5] And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
2. [7] And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.


Num.7

1. [17] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Nahshon the son of Amminadab.
2. [23] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Nethaneel the son of Zuar.
3. [29] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Eliab the son of Helon.
4. [35] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Elizur the son of Shedeur.
5. [41] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai.
6. [47] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Eliasaph the son of Deuel.
7. [53] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Elishama the son of Ammihud.
8. [59] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.
9. [65] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Abidan the son of Gideoni.
10. [71] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai.
11. [77] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Pagiel the son of Ocran.
12. [83] And for a sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five he goats, five lambs of the first year: this was the offering of Ahira the son of Enan.
13. [88] And all the oxen for the sacrifice of the peace offerings were twenty and four bullocks, the rams sixty, the he goats sixty, the lambs of the first year sixty. This was the dedication of the altar, after that it was anointed.


This is in the Old Testament instructing people to sacrifice various lambs, bullocks, he goats, and burnt offerings:

But then later in Isaiah God must have Alzheimer's disease or Amnesia:


Isa.1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.


There can be no argument about a "New Covenant" here because this is all still within the Old Testament.

The fable just isn't consistent by any stretch of the imagination.

However, I'm personally not even concerned about these trivial inconsistencies (although they do prove that this can't be the divinely inspired word of any all-wise, all-perfect deity because it's filled with the fallacies of men.

I'm more concerned with the "Big Picture". A supposedly unchanging God deals with sin by drowning out the human race at one point, and then has a drastic change-of-heart to the point where he "Loves the world so much as to sacrifice his only begotten son to save it".

That's absurd. That would be a God who had undergone a major change of heart. Call it a "New Covenant" and "Old Covenant" and it doesn't change a thing. It still represents a God who has a major change of heart in how he deals with mankind and sin.

That's absurd.

It's also absurd that this God would send his Only Begotten Son to be a "Sacrificial Lamb" after he supposedly said back in Isaiah that he was fed up with that kind of thing.

Unless he also "CHANGED" to become really sadistic to where he now needs to have HUMAN sacrificial BLOOD sacrifices!

But that would be a God that becomes more sadistic with time.

There's nothing consistent about this religion at all.

Also, when it comes to Christianity the very idea that someone needs to believe that Jesus is the Son of God is a blatant contradiction to what the religion originally stood for.

The original idea was that "Righteousness" was supposed to be important. But now "Righteousness" is meaningless if a person doesn't also "Believe" that Jesus was the son of God.

As far as I'm concerned that very condition right there proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that this religion was invented by men. Why would our Creator CHANGE from focusing on "Righteousness" to now focusing merely on what someone "Believes".

That's an utter absurdity in and of itself.

These religious fables are clearly the works of mortal men who are simply attempting to make "THEIR RELIGION" more important than anyone else's religion!

That's all these Middle Eastern Religions seem to care about. Putting THEIR GOD above all others.

These are clearly man-made fables, and they aren't even very good ones if you ask me.

.the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the Earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose” (Matthew 27:51-52).

certainly a hanged body in such conditions could actually burst upon falling


and my parents were expected to support us financially, but what good would that financial support do us without also showing us love?


that is not a contradiction,, to me at least..the sacrifices werent the means to reach God, they were strictly the symbolic measure which was to be ACCOMPANIED by obeying Gods commands

noone sees the Father except through the son, righteousness is certainly a condition I would imagine Jesus is concerned with so that belief in his crucifixion isnt a SET condition(obviously many are never even taught about it,,,), but DENYING christ could reasonably be considered reason for him to deny us,,,