O. U. P

If a girl admits to liking or enjoying sex, she's automatically classified as cheap, easy, cumdumpster, whore, slut, or any number of other colorful stupid names. Sure guy after guy will enjoy a girl like that but what happens, when a guy is ready to settle down he wants a 'good girl', and the problem with that is then he'll have to show her what he likes and meet alot of resistance. If he cant 'train her' properly to what he likes, for lack of a better word, then said 'good girl' is labled a prude or a dead lay giving the guy a reason to cheat in order to be satisfied. I know that doesnt apply to everyone of course, but thats how it generally is. It's sad really, because if women were more able to be open in their sexuality then i'm sure there would be more happy couples.

And dont give me the same old Bible passages tell me either what you think , believe ,or know based on facts not the Bible Tell me who created God,were did your GOD come from and how it all happen GOOD LUCK YOU'LL NEED IT

then were did evil come from really think about this... he created. Satan ,Hell,Hate, Death, Disease,War, everything vile and disgusting and bad remember we were created in his image if you people really believe in such a stupid God the more power to you as for me no thank you GOD SUCKS

Just about everyone is an atheist when it comes to other gods — the gods that other people believe in or that nobody believes in anymore. I’m an atheist about all gods because there's no reliable evidence for any god, or even for Jesus. There is also extensive evidence that Jesus and all gods are fictional characters — myths created mainly by primitive people who had little understanding of how our universe operates. We all like myths and other stories, but we don't have to believe them.

As for the extra-biblical historicity of Jesus, there is absolutely no reliable contemporary evidence that he ever even existed. He made no impression on any historian of the first century. If Jesus existed or if the spectacular events in the gospels really happened, they would have been noted by many writers — including Philo of Alexandria (who wrote extensively about Judea during the alleged time of Jesus), Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Justus of Tiberius, and over thirty others. [8], [17] None of these men referred to Jesus or the fantastical biblical events. The earliest extra-biblical supposed references to Jesus or Christ are in one paragraph and one sentence in the writings (about 93 CE) attributed to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (who also wrote about Hercules). Here are the supposed references, in his Jewish Antiquities:

18.3.3 — “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

20.9.1 — “...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...”

The sentence is far too brief to mean much. The phrase "who was called Christ" is awkward and was likely inserted by a transcriber. Plus, a few lines later Josephus refers to Jesus, the son of Damneus. This is likely the Jesus referred to in the sentence. [17] The paragraph looks like just about everything a Christian could hope for, to prove that Jesus actually existed. Unfortunately, it's an obvious latter insertion — almost certainly created by “church historian” Eusebius, who first referred to it shortly before Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. We know this for several reasons:

Despite the fact that Josephus' writings were widely read, no Christian or scholar before Eusebius refers to it, especially not the Christian scholar Origen, whose library Eusebius used. [8], [17]

Origen even wrote that Josephus did not believe in Jesus Christ. [8]

If the pious Jew Josephus had truly thought that Jesus was the Messiah, he would have become a Christian.

It's unlikely that Josephus would have referred to the accusing Jews as “the principal men among us.”

There never was a “tribe of Christians.”

Copies of Josephus' works existed, that lacked either reference to Jesus. [8]

The style of the text is radically different from the rest of his writings.

The text is completely out of context with the paragraphs around it, and interrupts their story line. The next paragraph begins, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." This refers to the previous paragraph, where Pilate had his soldiers massacre a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem.

Josephus wrote extensively about many minor people of the time. A single paragraph and sentence for the Messiah is impossible.

With these two spurious references removed from Josephus' writings, he becomes strong negative evidence for Jesus. If Jesus had existed, Josephus would have written extensively about him.

There are some supposed second century references to Christians or Christ - by several men. In about 100 CE, Pliny the Younger referred to Christians in Asia Minor, but he didn't refer to Jesus. The most used Christian reference from that century is by Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE). He purportedly wrote around 117 CE about “Christos” being executed by Pontius Pilate. However, Tacitus would have used Jesus' name, not his religious title “Christos.” Notedly, Tacitus' reference was not mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian (who quotes a great deal from Tacitus [8]) or Clement of Alexandria in the third century. It was likely added in 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice, because no mention is made of it in any known text prior to then, but there are many later references. [8], [19] Another writer, Suetonius, in about 120 CE referred to a man named Chrestus and his Jewish followers. However, “Chrestus” is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not a misspelling of “Christos.”

Even if the references by Josephus, Tacitus, and others in the second century are original, they only amount to second-hand testimony or hearsay written 60 or more years after the purported events

Jesus is nothing but an amalgamation of various other "sun" gods of ancient history. In "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" by TW Doane, he posits that The Essenes monks, who spent a great deal of time in the Library of Alexandria, where information on all the ancient religions were stored, created an "angel messiah" based on Buddha and others, which then evolved into "Jesus" as we know him today. The probability of a non historical Jesus, The most potent argument that jesus was one man instead of an amalgamation of myths attributed to one fictional character is the writings of Josephis which have even been declared to be most likely fraudulent by both biblical historians (including staunch apologists) and freethinkers alike.

“Deaths in the Bible. God – 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan – 10.” And if you read the Bible you'll realize the DEVIL has no power or authority out side of God freely giving it to him THINK people the Devil is GODS right hand man just read the Bible

Basically, there are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or

other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent. As Barbara G.

Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing."20

Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)—alive at the

purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire—

makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any

of the dozens of other historians and writers who flourished during the first one to two

centuries of the common era.21

In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus (37-c. 100 AD/CE), which constitute

hundreds of pages, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although

much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by many scholars and

even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and

James, "brother" of Jesus. Bishop Warburton (1698-1779) labeled the Josephus interpolation

regarding Jesus as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."22

The arguments against this

passage called the Testimonium Flavianum ("TF") are detailed and can be found in my other

books, especially Suns of God and Who Was Jesus?

Several writers conclude that it was Eusebius himself who forged the passage.23

As Dr. Alice

Whealey remarks, "No other ancient writer knew Josephus' works anywhere near well enough

to have crafted something so similar to Josephus' style.

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.

its so full of bull i can not imagine any sane person believing this garbage and plz ask me for proof i dare you

Some people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has spread the word of a character named Jesus throughout history, that this must mean that he actually lived. This argument simply does not hold. The number of people who believe or write about something or the professional degrees they hold say nothing at all about fact. Facts derive out of evidence, not from hearsay, not from hubris scholars, and certainly not from faithful believers. Regardless of the position or admiration held by a scholar, believer, or priest, if he or she cannot support a hypothesis with good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.what say you

If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

Heaven is a fairy tale invented by human imagination. And each person's fairy tale is different.

We imagine that we have "souls," fabricate the concept of "eternal life" and then fantasize a place called "heaven," complete with streets of gold, calorie-free foods, frolicking virgins and whatever else we can come up with. Christians imagine it so vividly and repeat the fantasy so often that they actually believe it to be reality.

How bizarre can the fantasies get? Fly to Cairo and take a look at the Great Pyramid. There is the pyramid itself -- still one of the largest man-made objects on earth. In addition there is the whole mummification process, the disassembled boats, the sacred artwork and so on. All of this was designed to help the pharaoh reach the afterlife. We look at it now and we all know, with absolute certainty, that it was a complete and total waste of time. The Egyptian notion of the afterlife was a fantasy.

The Christian notion of the afterlife is a fantasy in exactly the same way. Heaven is completely imaginary, just like God.

there are so many inconsistency in the Bible it hard to believe any intelligent person living today buys this fictional story

Heaven is a fairy tale invented by human imagination. And each person's fairy tale is different.

We imagine that we have "souls," fabricate the concept of "eternal life" and then fantasize a place called "heaven," complete with streets of gold, calorie-free foods, frolicking virgins and whatever else we can come up with. Christians imagine it so vividly and repeat the fantasy so often that they actually believe it to be reality.

How bizarre can the fantasies get? Fly to Cairo and take a look at the Great Pyramid. There is the pyramid itself -- still one of the largest man-made objects on earth. In addition there is the whole mummification process, the disassembled boats, the sacred artwork and so on. All of this was designed to help the pharaoh reach the afterlife. We look at it now and we all know, with absolute certainty, that it was a complete and total waste of time. The Egyptian notion of the afterlife was a fantasy.

The Christian notion of the afterlife is a fantasy in exactly the same way. Heaven is completely imaginary, just like God.

Heaven is a fairy tale invented by human imagination. And each person's fairy tale is different.

We imagine that we have "souls," fabricate the concept of "eternal life" and then fantasize a place called "heaven," complete with streets of gold, calorie-free foods, frolicking virgins and whatever else we can come up with. Christians imagine it so vividly and repeat the fantasy so often that they actually believe it to be reality.

How bizarre can the fantasies get? Fly to Cairo and take a look at the Great Pyramid. There is the pyramid itself -- still one of the largest man-made objects on earth. In addition there is the whole mummification process, the disassembled boats, the sacred artwork and so on. All of this was designed to help the pharaoh reach the afterlife. We look at it now and we all know, with absolute certainty, that it was a complete and total waste of time. The Egyptian notion of the afterlife was a fantasy.

The Christian notion of the afterlife is a fantasy in exactly the same way. Heaven is completely imaginary, just like God.

A favorite Christian rationalization for why God does not answer our prayer to eliminate cancer is because "it would take away free will." The logic: If you pray and God answers your prayer, then God would have revealed himself to you, and you would know that God exists. That would take away your free will to believe in him. Of course, if this is true, then by default all of Jesus' statements about prayer in the Bible are false. It means that God cannot answer any prayer. Also, why is a God who must remain hidden like this incarnating himself and writing the Bible?

If Jesus is God, and if God is perfect, why aren't all of Jesus's verses about prayer true? Was Jesus exagerating? Was he fibbing? If Jesus is perfect, why wouldn't he speak the truth? Why doesn't a prayer to cure cancer worldwide tomorrow work?

Believers have many different ways to explain why all these verses in the Bible do not work, even if you are praying sincerely, unselfishly and non-materialistically, and even if the answer to your prayer would help millions of people and glorify God in the process. They will say things like this:

"You need to understand what Jesus was saying in the context the first century civilization in which he was speaking..."

or:

"When Jesus talked about 'moving a mountain', he was speaking metaphorically. When someone says, 'it is raining cats and dogs,' no one takes him literally. Jesus was using a figure of speech rather than speaking literally..."

or:

God is not a thing. He is a being. He has a will. He has desires. He relates to people. He has personality traits. Prayer is a fancy word for talking to God. God, who knows everything, even before we say it, knows the difference between our thoughts and wishes, and when we are actually addressing him. He hears our prayers and responds. His responses are based on his personal decisions. We cannot predict how he will respond to our prayers... [ref]

The problem is, all of these rationalizations miss two important points:

God is supposed to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect being.

The statement, "Nothing will be impossible for you", along with the other Bible verses quoted above, are false. The fact is, lots of things are impossible for you.

If a perfect being is going to make statements about how prayer works in the Bible, then three things are certain: 1) He would speak clearly, 2) he would say what he means, and 3) he would speak the truth. That is what "being perfect" is all about. A perfect, all-knowing God would know that people would be reading the Bible 2,000 years later, and therefore he would not use first-century idioms (he would say what he means). He would know that normal people will be reading the Bible and interpreting it in normal ways, so he would speak in such a way as to avoid mis-interpretation (he would speak clearly). He would know that when you say, "Nothing will be impossible for you", that what it means is, "Nothing will be impossible for you" and he would make sure that the statement "Nothing will be impossible for you" is accurate (he would speak the truth). If God says it, it should be true -- otherwise he is not perfect.

Unfortunately, the fact is that thousands of things are impossible for you no matter how much you pray, and no one (including Jesus) has ever moved a mountain.

In order to see the truth, you need to accept the fact that all of the above verses are wrong. The fact is, God does not answer prayers. The reason why God does not answer your prayers is simple: God is imaginary.

The Evil of Jesus:

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

Jesus: “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword if you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine." Matthew 10:34

“Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the immoral laws of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God. (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15

On the subject of quoting the Bible - here's one from Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

There you have it - straight from the horse's mouth. He admits to creating evil. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I demand you return a verdict of Guilty

how can Christians even attempt to justify the horrendous and abhorrent acts that God performs in the Bible, by arguing that ‘God is God, so whatever he does is justified’ Christians will say: He is the ultimate standard for what is just and unjust. He can kill who He pleases and is righteous in doing it, for example)

How can you possibly buy into this? God’s actions in the Bible are absolutely incompatible with our moral faculties. The Bible says that God will send the vast majority of human beings to hell “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” and that people sent there shall be “tormented with fire and brimstone . . . for ever and ever”

We know that torturing people is immoral! Certainly you would not think we should gather all the earth’s homosexuals, unbelievers, and other ‘sinners’ together and torture them until they die. This is ludicrous! It is absolutely incompatible with our human faculty of morality; our sense of empathy and sympathy for other human beings. Look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; almost all contemporary societies endorse the idea that all human beings are entitled to certain universal and inalienable rights. This includes the belief humans should not be subjected to torture.

Now religious people will come up with all sorts of explenations and reasonings and justifications for these killings, or try to dismiss them as pre-Jesus (although of course Jesus also strongly advocates the laws of Moses), in order to somehow make the Bible morally "right" in a world that has moved a long way ahead since it was written. And fortunately so: in the end the important thing is that no sane person would try to follow the example of god or his prophets or find his or hers moral beliefs in the actual words of the Bible.

If the absolute source of morality is whatever God commands, no matter how abhorrent, than why would God have endowed human beings with a moral faculty that goes completely against what He commands? God is love?

I do not believe in either God or Satan,but have you read Paradise Lost? If not, you might find the character of Satan appealing. His motivation for rebelling wasn't jealousy or desire for power, instead he disagreed with God creating humans with a lack of knowledge and free will. He definitely has one of the sickest lines in all of English literature: "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

permalink