(March 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm)urlawyer Wrote: Hey fellow human peoples, so I need a little help here. I'm trying to form a relatively air tight stance on the illogical inconsistencies of the new testament in the event that all hell breaks loose and I find myself arguing against a christian who somehow circumvents the ridiculousness of the old testament and is able to stand on the new testament by itself.
Now I know there is a plethora of factual contradictions in the first four books themselves which you'd think would be enough, but I need something more than a basic fact check to debate this. I need a philosophical/theological/moral point to make like you can do so easily with the old testament.
Does anyone know if Jesus ate babies, for instance, or liked The Last Airbender movie?
The two most important stories, birth and death, are by themselves scientifically absurd claims. If he had been claimed to have eaten babies that would be more realistic because babies do exist, virgin births and zombie gods do not.
But outside that while the contradictions while fun, the totality of the entire bible from a moral context is frightening.
You have this claimed god who is immovable, whom you didn't vote into his position, whom cannot be voted out of his position, whom you cannot impeach, and while may take kindly to some who follow him, still does not need your consent to rule over you. I like to summarize the plot in 3 parts.
1. I beat you for your own good.
2. I'm sorry I beat you, I won't do that again.
3. Screw it, I'll beat you if I want, burn everything, take my minions and destroy everyone else who didn't kiss my ass.
Good thing in reality is such a monster does not exist. Bad thing is people think he is real and are willing to kill for this horrible fictional character.
