The Biblical God is more credible than the other religions' gods.

My definition for religion is: "Religion is a system of beliefs or a code of moral conduct that judges (qualifies or disqualifies) a person based on their adherence and obedience to certain codes, rules, laws, traditions, or the performance of required acts." Therefore i say it is not a religion because: "The difference between Christianity and every other faith in the world is that all other religions are about man trying to reach up to God. Christianity is about God reaching down to man." Im also not sure there's a point in citing wikipedia, seeing as how anyone can log into that site and write whatever they want but i'll address them nonetheless. You said "The bible doesn't tells only the story of Jesus,many of its stories tell about genocide(Noah's Ark,Sodom and Gomorrah,etc.)[1][2],infanticide[3],slavery[4][5][6] and other abominable things. -Yes you are correct, the Bible does speak of such events. These are all however in the Old Testament. Meaning that they happened before Jesus' sacrifice. The Old Testament is filled with these events because it was showing the sinful nature of mankind. It was showing how the world needed redemption and salvation, otherwise it would have continued on like this. The Old Testament portrays the wrath of God against the sin of man; Whereas the New Testament shows the grace of God toward sinners. It shows prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament, and gives the history of everything. So stating your above statement proves that the Bible is about love and grace. Thus leading to the very meaningful sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Its because of these events that proved man was incapable of living a 100% perfect life and if that was not possible than being with God would not be possible because of our sin and filth. God cannot be around that because he is perfect. So because of this, Jesus Christ came down and was sacrificed and lived a perfect life FOR us. Through Jesus' crucifixion it washed away all of our sins and imperfections so that we can be with God. He paid the price for us. So it most certainly was needed. That was the whole point of it, in order to show us grace, mercy and love. You said " Jesus may have had unconditional love but i don't think your God does,unconditional means without any condition or requirement,and to be loved by your God you need to believe in him,the resurrection and that you are guilty of your sins,or he sends you to hell, " -I would easily refute this because there are absolutely no requirements in order for God to love you. Nowhere does is say that. God's love is unconditional. His love is not contingent on whether or not you love or believe in him. Im sorry to break it to you, but you could be a serial killer, satanist etc. and he will still love you all the same. What you are mistaken it for is salvation. God doesn't send anyone to hell, that's a choice each individual makes on their own. You go to hell if you do not believe and accept him as your Lord and Savior. Even in hell, you are loved by God. There are only people who have accepted His love. Its just like your parents. They love you unconditionally, meaning even when you misbehave and go against what they say, they still love despite that. That doesn't mean that there are no consequences. It's even more unconditional, than that, with God. You also stated "apart from being omnipotent and being able to remove you from there or not put you there in the first place,and i don't think that act condones love." - God does not remove people from hell. He gives you the opportunity to accept him and THAT is what removes you from hell. If he were to remove you from hell AFTER the fact, then there would be no point in faith, love, mercy, acceptance, salvation, redemption or any of this to begin with. This is where the Free Will comes into play. That would be like saying "oh, i can kill all of these people because i know i won't have to pay the price for it" God isn't a get out of jail free card. There are different calendars that use another historic events as epoch[9]. - Simply put, we do not base our time on any other calendar and it's not because people were to lazy to change anything. The only reason it would not be used is because people wouldn't want to acknowledge the Lord. Christianity was really powerful and no one wanted to read the years based on someone who persecuted against Christians -I'm assuming that you meant to say, based on the persecution of the christian belief? Otherwise your sentence is incoherent. there are a lot of different theories of why the Cambrian explosion occurred,like the increase in oxygen that happened,the formation of the ozone to shield the earth from UV rays,the snowball earth theory,etc.[12] -If this theory doesn't disprove evolution, then why do we not see the intermediate fossil remains from the transition of apes to mankind? and other "missing links" between the layers? Because there are none. You can't refute this because this is tangible fact already proven. This proves that God spoke into existence all of these species. The fossils and records of them were complete, not in transitional phases. Meaning done, final, they were in existence. It was A to B, nothing in-between. Approximately 98% of every thing that had ever lived was extinct when you reach the most recent layer above the Cambrian period. So the increase in oxygen and formation of the ozone, are not the cause of this abrupt, complex explosion of species. And should there had been an increase in oxygen, ozone, etc. which obviously there was because those are necessary for survival. That is because God spoke it into existence. It says this in Genesis 1:1-20 Which just so happens to be BEFORE the Bible verses in Genesis 1:20-25 which i wrote down earlier explaining the Cambrian Explosion. So basically you just helped proved my point! Because when you read Genesis, the beginning, it states all of these events in perfect sequence. Thanks! You stated "About the Noah's Ark,many mythological stories tells about some person that built a giant boat and are older than Noah's story,like the ancient Greek myths[15] or the Gilgamesh flood myth,so i don't think Noah's Ark is credible,the similarities are incredible,and the stories are older. Also,this seems cherry-picked,i googled i didn't found anyone scientifically proved that was an ark and the one of the bible,then i headed to wikipedia and found out that after expeditions and tests it was disproved[17][18]:" -First off, mythological meaning imaginary, existing only in the imagination, i.e. fiction. The Bible is not mythology, so that's like comparing apples to oranges. Saying Noah's Ark isn't credible because you "think" it isn't, holds absolutely no weight. "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." Also that site i linked you to, is not "cherry picked" type Noah's Ark found 2014 and you will arrive at this site. Again, you taking your information from "wikipedia" an untrustworthy site, first off rids you of any credibility you think you have. Secondly, no University (higher establishment of education) would accept this as a valid source. If you were to turn this into any professor he would look at that wikipedia source and automatically throw the paper in the trash. Wouldn't even bother to read the title. But i digress, the site that i linked you too shows tangible, irrefutable evidence of Noah's Ark. On wikipedia, the claims of it being disproved are pre-2014 leading to it's inaccuracy regardless. You stated "After a few expeditions to the Durupınar site that included drilling and excavation in the 1990s, Fasold began to have doubts that the Durupınar formation was Noah's ark. He visited the site in September 1994 with Australian geologist Ian Plimer and concluded that the structure was not a boat." -This makes me wonder if you really read my above statements. Noah's Ark was not found there because that is not where the Bible said it was. The Bible stated, in genesis that the ark settles on the mountain of Ararat in Turkey. Recently the Ark was finally and successfully discovered, in Turkey. So again, your above quote is inaccurate and can't be used to disprove the current finding, especially since that was dated in 1994.... and we're currently in 2014. Again, here's the site for your proof (http://www.sunnyskyz.com...) You stated "The bible has a lot of contradictions[19]" -First of, the Bible does not have contradictions. There is a book written by an Atheist (Lee Strobel) called"A Case For Christ" which proves the credibility of Jesus of Nazareth, and disproves contradictions. It is science that contradicts the truth, not the Bible. Also, you have to look at the context of what's being said to prove contradictions. You stated "If God is omniscient,omnipotent and omnibenevolent,free will can't exist" -This is the false doctrine of Predestination. "The Bible says, "The Lord"is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). God wants all people to be saved and does not predestine anyone to be saved or lost. The only thing that God has predestined or predetermined is to save those who are obedient to His commands (Hebrews 5:9) and to punish those who are disobedient (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). "Predestination" accuses God of being partial and showing favoritism, but God"s word says that, "God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34-35)." In conclusion, "If you're not a believer and you dont believe God exists at all, about the only hope you have is that he not be there, that's your hope, maybe he's not there. What were saying is, we trust that he is."