Christianity

1)a) Where did you show? I asked you a very simple question. You quoted from the Bible. Where did you prove anything? You asked to tell the problem with Christianity. Because, it justifies even mean things in the name of religion, by using circular logic. b)That is my question. Why will not omnipotent God be able to control people's thinking for a moment and make a peaceful society? Is it not his goal?"They learn..." If it really is God's intentions to let them understand their guilt, why cannot God do it in a jiffy? If he cannot do it, how is he omnipotent? You cannot be omnipotent, if you are unable to do at least one thing, regardless of whether you are capable of doing every other thing or not. And if God is omnipotent, and not trying to do it in a jiffy and let people kill each other for thousands of years, in order to make them learn, is not that a lame logic? Your God is malevolent then. Too malevolent. b) (I put two 'b's) A spirit has body? What kind of spirit is that? A ghost? Christianity must know what kind of properties a spirit should possess. Please define that in detail. This is a big problem.c) Man! The God is omniscient, remember? He would ALREADY KNOW people's jobs. d) "Keep in mind, the person who is going to rape, is going to rape regardless." That is my question that you are claiming you have refuted. WHY SHOULD I CALL GOD OMNIPOTENT, IF HE CANNOT STOP RAPIST'S FREE-WILL? DOES NOT HE HAVE THE POWER? AND EVEN IF HE IS ABLE, MUST NOT DOING, WHY CALL HIM GOOD? HE IS HORRIBLE. HE IS HATEFUL.Plain question. Answer this. Don't claim the test thing. 'Omnipotent' mans "unlimited authority or power". If he cannot control free-will, how is he omnipotent? OMNIPOTENT means being able to do every single thing. Remember that.e) "If we look at the bigger picture, what could be the pros and cons to each situation?" Rape has a 'pro' situation? GREAT! This is what patriarchy says. If a woman is forced to leave a place for 'BETTER LIFE', after rape, that is ENFORCEMENT, that is BRUTALITY, that is a CRIME. It DOES NOT make life better. Sorry if I am being rude. But I cannot resist when someone justifies Rape (and pictures its 'pros' from any perspective, like religious) for even a single microsecond.f) What you are giving is called A PERSONAL ANECTODE, or, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. That does no way prove that God exists. g) You made my point flourish. That is exactly what I said. "These people would of raped or murdered regardless of the situation, that has to be kept in mind." God is either 'not omnipotent' or ' he is malevolent'. Nothing in between. Check the dictionaries if you have trouble with the meanings. h) "Trust me I know, I used to be there." I was expecting this a lot earlier. You are too late to say this. I have no comment on this. Personal anecdotes and empirical evidence cannot prove anything. Instead of justifying things from the Bible, please establish the claim that 'the Bible' is truth and not 'contracdictory'. And, please tell me more about the talking serpent.i) Religions here, Christianity) has occasssional good verses about woman. YES, IT DOES. I AGREE. But in most of the cases, what is the outcome and conclusion? THE BIBLE IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS REGARDING THIS. Do not you think that 'his female' is hatred of women? Enslaving is the father of hatred, in apatriarchal society. Well, justifying rape by any mean (even if it is for a negligible amount of time) is CONDEMNABLE according to me.j) Evidence? Where is it, sir? What you are claiming to be logic what the Bible says. And I am asking you to prove that how come the Bible is to be relied on? Where is the evidence that it is not a story?k) "Therefore, if there are idols and demons in the Bible, and they can be correlated to real life, it shows that these demons are real and that GOD is real too"Wait wait wait! If I can correlate the things like the Kingscross station, does that prove that Harry Potter is for real?Where did I refute the GREAT FLOOD? It may well have happened. Even Manu-Samhita hints to that. Though that is not an evidence, it is definitely an apple of discord between historians. It could have happened. But that the Bible describes the Great Flood doesnot mean that EVERY SINGLE thing is true, and it does not prove it either that the incidents described in the Bible really happened..RMS Titanic sank. That does not make the story of 'Titanic'(1997) true. That would just be logical fallacy about correlation. You can Google it.A story can be based on real events, with fictional records of characters. King Solomon's temple does not prove the Bible is truth, either. Do you have any tangible evidence? For example : What you are saying is comparable to this one. Read the statements1. The existence of New-York is real.2. Spider-Man lives in New York.3. Therefore, Spider-Man is real.Does that make any sense? l) "I have shown you much evidence" -- Yes. You did. But you have mistaken 'anecdote' and 'claim' for evidence. YOU STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE why the Bible is real. Trust me, you can get good proof that anatomy books are real. The physics books are real. They have tangible evidence.How can you validate that the Bible, too, has proof? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?Saying 'I have Evidence' and 'Showing evidence, in lieu of quoting from a book without validating the accounts are ALL real' - these two things have a distinct difference.