Some say "I'm not religious, I have a relationship with my Saviour" which honestly kind of tracks. Cultural Christians and "ex-Christians" have a hard time understanding due to missing that specific first-hand experience. While the evidence alone is compelling: The historical veracity of the Biblical stories as opposed to man-made religions (especially Islam and Atheism) - the forensic evidence of the Resurrection which doubles as history's first selfie, that even those who have actively tried to debunk it have admitted to failing to reproduce the Shroud in all of its Glory, from the radiation-burnt linen that produces a 3D image of a man to the blood spatters consistent with an incredibly torturous death to the pollen traces consistent with Biblical claims of the tomb's location. I spent twenty years trying to be an Atheist, and had to admit that there's not a single
shred of evidence for the Atheist claim of a Godless world. So much so, that they retreat to the Motte of being agnostic when pressed. Ironically enough, Christians invented that term to cut Atheists off from their Motte and Bailey strategy in that regard, and pin them to their claims that God doesn't exist.
But the
peace beyond understanding is real. It's not a thing you can put in a laboratory and test. It's not a thing that can be proven or disproven via the scientific method (also invented by Christians, due to their faith that the natural law was unchanging because the lawgiver is not fickle - go ahead Atheists, prove that the natural law is unchanging, and not just unchanging so far), but I can tell you that it
is real. I even pressed it to see if it was a placebo, and He knew to leave me alone in my fear so that I knew His comfort wasn't just my imagination. The dreams that well-meaning Muslims who don't hate God like they're supposed to are having of Jesus as well, are far too many to be explained away by some mere conspiracy or group hallucination - at least not without serious evidence to those effects.
- Countless examples of Extreme violence/Murder/War/Revenge
- A picture of an almighty God I would call blasphemous
- Rape, including a man offering his virgin daughters to a violent mob
- Cannibalism
- Intolerance, including racism
Anybody may believe whatever they want. As long as they do not try to force their believes on others I have no problem with religion. It is a private decision. Sadly "spreading the word and convincing others" is part of many (not all) religions.
Right, I want a crack at addressing this.
First point: if God is omniscient, then that means He knows
exactly when mass violence is the best solution to quell evil, and when a kind word is the best solution. If He is not, then He is not God. This also means that His definition of evil is true, and yours is false if it differs from His. Jesus sat with prostitutes and healed them of sin, but also chased merchants with a whip and will drive out the wicked with an army of giant man-eating birds when He returns.
Second point: That's stupid. If He's God, then His picture isn't blasphemous. If He's not, then He's just an idol. The question shouldn't be based on anyone's understanding of ethics, but of the cold hard facts. He's either the moral lawgiver or He's a made-up boondoggle. There's no in-between.
Third point: God knew they'd ignore the daughters and wanted to make a point. They had faith that they were in no danger.
Fourth point: I've never seen this portrayed in Scripture at all, much less as a good thing. I'll re-read it, see if I missed anything.
Fifth point: Is racism inherently bad? Racism being inherently bad hinges on the idea that there are no differences between the races at all outside of their cultures, which was most certainly
not the case for the potentially-mythological Nephilim, who were the inherently evil misbegotten offspring of demons. Perhaps the "cannibalism" you mentioned was actually the Nephilim's xenophagic behaviour towards humans. Not being human themselves, it would not be cannibalism.
Don't throw out Jesus because of Judas. The Roman Catholic Church institution had a pedophile scandal. This should be a good thing: it was a
scandal. The laity were disgusted because such behaviour is wretched and degenerate. Whereas, what's the scandal when basically every Mosque on the planet has a similar problem? The scandal is that you're a nasty little Islamophobic racist for pointing it out. Pederasty was outright
expected in the ancient world until Christian missionaries spread the ideas that pedophilia and homosexuality are wrong. Think of that what you will.
This is a matter of eternal significance if true. Spreading the word is either more important than anything else, or completely useless. And if it's the latter, Atheists would be able to prove it.
Here's a good resource as to why Islam is inherently self-contradictory.
