{"id":10801,"date":"2020-05-24T11:15:44","date_gmt":"2020-05-24T15:15:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=10801"},"modified":"2020-06-16T09:21:58","modified_gmt":"2020-06-16T13:21:58","slug":"2451-2500","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=10801","title":{"rendered":"2451-2500"},"content":{"rendered":"

(2451) Wikipedia versus God<\/strong><\/p>\n

Human technology has evolved to the point where up-to-date information can be distributed to virtually every person in a matter of seconds.\u00a0 Mistakes can be corrected and new information can be transmitted in this fashion. Given that we know for certain that the Bible contains errors as well as instructions, morals, and prohibitions that are no longer relevant to modern society, why would God allow his critical message to be limited by an ancient text? The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/danielmiessler.com\/blog\/the-bible-is-fiction-a-collection-of-evidence\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Why does the Bible talk constantly about how to manage slaves, how to kill one\u2019s enemies, and how to avoid making God angry, but there\u2019s not much focus at all on seemingly obvious things like, \u201cThou Shalt Not Harm a Child\u201d?<\/p>\n

When Wikipedia can be updated by a random human,\u00a0for billions of people in mere seconds, why has\u00a0God left\u00a0his book filled with stories of slavery, rape, and genocide from thousands of years ago?<\/p>\n

It might be that God is unwilling to magically change the text of billions of Bibles and electronic documents, although this is theoretically within his capability. What we might expect from an actual god would be to introduce to the world a new, inspired text. But since most Christians seem to believe that God does not want to do anything that is clearly supernatural (and so destroy the faith that he seems to crave), it appears that his message will be forever mired in Iron Age justice and morality, while humankind continues to advance and improve, progressively making the Bible less and less relevant over <\/a>time.<\/p>\n

(2452) Rationalizations for failed prayers are invalid<\/strong><\/p>\n

There exists a huge gulf between how the Bible touts the effectiveness and reliability of prayers against how this plays out in real life. Prayers consistently fail, and it is up to Christian apologists to explain this discrepancy. In the following, it is shown that these arguments do not meet any standard of logic:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/godisimaginary.com\/i1.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

“You need to understand what Jesus was saying in the context the first century civilization in which he was speaking…”<\/p>\n

or:<\/p>\n

“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…”<\/p>\n

or:<\/p>\n

“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.”<\/p>\n

The primary problem with these rationalizations is that they miss the point. The fact is that God never answers any prayers, as discussed\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Going one step further, the problem is that all of these rationalizations miss two other important points:<\/p>\n

God is supposed to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect being.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, when you choose between a tangled weave of complicated and internally-inconsistent rationalizations versus a simple explanation, the\u00a0latter is likely to be true. God is not real explains everything <\/a>perfectly.<\/p>\n

(2453) Insanity in the Bible<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sometimes it takes only a single example to demonstrate that the Bible could not be the work of the creator of the universe. The following indicates a level of insanity that could attributed only to a sick human mind:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/howgodworks.com\/how-can-any-intelligent-person-ignore-the-insanity-in-the-bible\/<\/a><\/p>\n

If you are a Christian, let me ask you something: Have you ever read the Bible and noticed how much insanity it contains?<\/p>\n

Here is a very simple example in\u00a0Exodus 31<\/a>:<\/p>\n

14 \u201c\u2018Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death<\/p>\n

Did they really stone people to death for something as silly as working on the Sabbath? According to\u00a0Numbers 15<\/a>\u00a0they did:<\/p>\n

32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, \u201cThe man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.\u201d 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.<\/p>\n

What kind of \u201cgod\u201d would behave this way, demanding death for something so trivial? The answer is easy: an imaginary god made up by deranged people in a primitive, pre-scientific society.<\/p>\n

Is\u00a0insane\u00a0the right word? The dictionary defines the word insanity in\u00a0this way<\/a>:<\/p>\n

extreme folly or unreasonableness;\u00a0something utterly foolish or unreasonable<\/p>\n

Is it\u00a0utterly foolish and unreasonable to kill someone because they collect wood on the wrong day of the week? Of course it is.<\/p>\n

I would ask you to consider this new way of thinking: Understand and accept that a great number of the ideas, rules, decrees, etc. found in the Bible can be best described as insane. Become a rational, objective person and accept this obvious conclusion, instead of avoiding it or trying to apologize your way around the insanity.<\/p>\n

What makes this even more hideous is that Moses was reluctant to execute the man, perhaps because he didn\u2019t see it as being an appropriate punishment, but the Lord, who should be the civilized character in this drama, demanded the death penalty. It matters not that this insane story was obviously fictional, but rather that it appears in the Bible at <\/a>all.<\/p>\n

(2454) Assessing Christianity\u2019s claim to be based on love<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the most durable assertions of Christian followers it that their\u2019s is a religion of love. This seems to be based on the promise that a (potentially small) subset of humanity will be \u2018saved\u2019 from the just punishment for their sins and given a wondrous life in heaven. But it dismisses practically everything else. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/gq2map\/very_easy_to_see_that_christianity_is_not_a\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Christians ALWAYS claim that Christianity is a religion of love and Jesus’ or God’s love features prominently in Christian apologetics. As a child attending junior ministry, I struggled to reconcile this idea of Christianity being a religion of love with the contents of the Bible.<\/p>\n

The Old Testament shows us love when God commits multiple acts of genocide. These acts of love include (but are not limited to):<\/p>\n