I am a non-believer and have some questions

[David T]

The main point was, we have two views on life, evolution or creation...well, there's transpermia but same-same, really- aliens were either created or evolved.
The story that was written is full of predictions (prophecies) that have, indeed, come true- or we can see they are about to come true. Were it not for those I'd agree with you. But, those darn ffacts are there and impossible for the average human of that day (any day, even ours for some of them) could have never just thot up. How do you explain them?

Culturally We have one view of life nature as machine. A dog is an evolutionist it's not that impressive. How stupid is western culture to forget that life is interconnected? St FrAncis called it in 1200 ad "family of god". How is that not an evolutionary statement imterpersomally? There I no objective view as to the totality of evolution since it encapsulates the entirety of thought as well.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Sorry, but hell is a man-made concept invented to keep the flock under control.

I gotta agree with that.
Christianity is all about controlling people and telling them what they can and cannot do.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

The visual horror of the person being burned alive, their screams, and the smell of burnt flesh permeated the minds of all those that witnessed it.

Isn't that something relating to the Salem Witch Trials?
Idk though. I am curious to know.

 

[Neo Deist]

Isn't that something relating to the Salem Witch Trials?
Idk though. I am curious to know.

Witches were burned at the stake along with heretics. Galileo was lucky to just get house arrest.

One way they tested to see if a woman was a witch was to throw her into the water. If she swam and lived, she was a witch, because only the devil could give her the power to conquer water. If she drowned and died, she was innocent...but still dead. Oops!

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Witches were burned at the stake along with heretics. Galileo was lucky to just get house arrest.

One way they tested to see if a woman was a witch was to throw her into the water. If she swam and lived, she was a witch, because only the devil could give her the power to conquer water. If she drowned and died, she was innocent...but still dead. Oops!

Of course they would do that >.>

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Now I think the previous post I just made is a very valid in-depth refutation to God's moral character. I am leaving that post open to anyone who wishes to debate it. But I will make this point here and say that I am no doubt convinced that God's moral character as portrayed by Christianity is not an all loving, all just, and righteous moral standard.

But as for the existence of God, I am undecided on that one as I've said before. I have no authority whatsoever in judging the validity of the claimed evidence for the Shroud of Turin or any other claimed evidence for that matter. Neither do I have any authority in judging the validity of the skeptical claims and claimed evidence by skeptics. This is because I am no scientist and neither am I someone educated and trained who can really look into the science and validity behind such claimed evidence.

So that leaves me no choice but to remain undecided. I am just your very basic average human being who knows nothing about science, philosophy, how the world works, or anything else. But the concept of morality is intrinsic knowledge in my life since we as human beings naturally learn what is right and wrong throughout our lives. It is knowledge that is naturally obtained over time. But the Christian moral standard, in my honest opinion, skews us from what would of otherwise been a righteous moral standard that we would of learned naturally as human beings on our own.

So if the Christian God and Jesus are real, then I can definitely rule out the Christian moral standard. This would have to mean that there was no concept of original sin. It would have to mean that Jesus was the holy son of God who walked the Earth, but his sacrifice on the cross was not for our sins and not for us to accept Jesus, repent, or go to hell. Rather, his crucifixion was simply no different than any other unfortunate predicament we as human beings get ourselves into.

There are people who are born into unfortunate situations such as those who are abused, tortured, starved, etc. and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would have to be no different than these types of situations. Therefore, since there would be no concept of original sin, then we are all already welcomed into God's heavenly kingdom. But there would be at least some punishment for wrong doing. It wouldn't be hell though.

Even if we did somehow go there, God would get us out since no morally righteous God would just leave us there when he has the power to get us out. The only wrongdoing would be if you were someone cruel harming and torturing others. Other than that, God would respect your way of life.

 

[natasha levchenko]

I am sorry to burst your scriptural answer...however

If you read those scriptures in the correct formate and in CONTEXT you will understand, the intended message, that it is better to be as a living lowly-dog than a dead mighty-lion.....because the lowly-dog is still living and as such he has hope (since he can continue to repent of his ways and change them). No matter how great the lion was....the dead lion's probationary period of time (designed as a time to repent and change) has been spent and he can no longer progress to his desired goal after he dies. He is dead and without the hope of repentance....therefore his mightiness before men will be forgotten.

everything is ok)

 

[natasha levchenko]

Hell can be described as a condition and/or place. People who live on earth can experience earthlife as a hell (it is a product of the mind). Also those who die, can find themselves either in paradise or a state of hell (also called spirit-prison). This state is an unhappy place where there is an end to progression and knowledge--this is both a mental condition and place which one goes to temporarily before the Final Judgement. There is another eternal place where the damned go (both a state of mind and place) and it is gained as a final judgment.

if God created people to live on earth why did he create such a place as "hell"?

 

[natasha levchenko]

Now I think the previous post I just made is a very valid in-depth refutation to God's moral character. I am leaving that post open to anyone who wishes to debate it. But I will make this point here and say that I am no doubt convinced that God's moral character as portrayed by Christianity is not an all loving, all just, and righteous moral standard.

But as for the existence of God, I am undecided on that one as I've said before. I have no authority whatsoever in judging the validity of the claimed evidence for the Shroud of Turin or any other claimed evidence for that matter. Neither do I have any authority in judging the validity of the skeptical claims and claimed evidence by skeptics. This is because I am no scientist and neither am I someone educated and trained who can really look into the science and validity behind such claimed evidence.

So that leaves me no choice but to remain undecided. I am just your very basic average human being who knows nothing about science, philosophy, how the world works, or anything else. But the concept of morality is intrinsic knowledge in my life since we as human beings naturally learn what is right and wrong throughout our lives. It is knowledge that is naturally obtained over time. But the Christian moral standard, in my honest opinion, skews us from what would of otherwise been a righteous moral standard that we would of learned naturally as human beings on our own.

So if the Christian God and Jesus are real, then I can definitely rule out the Christian moral standard. This would have to mean that there was no concept of original sin. It would have to mean that Jesus was the holy son of God who walked the Earth, but his sacrifice on the cross was not for our sins and not for us to accept Jesus, repent, or go to hell. Rather, his crucifixion was simply no different than any other unfortunate predicament we as human beings get ourselves into.

There are people who are born into unfortunate situations such as those who are abused, tortured, starved, etc. and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would have to be no different than these types of situations. Therefore, since there would be no concept of original sin, then we are all already welcomed into God's heavenly kingdom. But there would be at least some punishment for wrong doing. It wouldn't be hell though.

Even if we did somehow go there, God would get us out since no morally righteous God would just leave us there when he has the power to get us out. The only wrongdoing would be if you were someone cruel harming and torturing others. Other than that, God would respect your way of life.

are you sure you are really content with the answers to your question?))please ,no offence study the Bible yourself

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

are you sure you are really content with the answers to your question?))please ,no offence study the Bible yourself

I've already studied the Bible and I still stand by to what I said.

 

[Janet Waters]

If God created people to live on earth, why did he create a place such as "hell."

Was this meant to be your question to me? You know that I am LDS right?

If so.....in order to discuss this, it is important to first determine God's purpose for mankind and the role that the Plan of Salvation plays in gettng us where we needed to go.

God's purpose----his work and his glory----is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind.

• Moses 1:39
  39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Because of Jesus Christ---All mankind will receive the unconditional gift of Immortality through the resurrection. However, the conditional gift of Eternal Life (returning to the highest kingdom of heaven) is reserved only for the faithful.

"The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is designed to bring about both man’s immortality and eternal life. It includes the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement, along with all God-given laws, ordinances, and doctrines. This plan makes it possible for all people to be exalted (gaining Eternal Life) and live forever with God (2 Ne. 2, 9). The scriptures also refer to this plan as the plan of salvation, the plan of redemption, the plan of happiness, and the plan of mercy." Bible Dictionary, The Plan of Redemption.

After the Resurrection (where Immortality is gained) all mankind will go before our Maker to be judged of our faith + works (at the Final Judgment) to be assigned our==rewards of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven has many levels of faithfulness (also referred to as "many mansions"). The highest glory that can be attained in Heaven is referred to as the Celestial Kingdom [Eternal Life], then the lesser Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. Each of these three glories are divided into three levels. For those who do not receive a "mansion in my father's kingdom" they will be CAST-OUT (damned) into outer-darkness in Hell. A Rewards system neccissitates the need for a non-reward. Where there are rewards for obeying God and His Laws......there must also be an appropriate place for those to go, who refused to obey. If there is no sin.....then there will not be a reward nor a punishment for complying or not complying.

• 1 Corinthians 15:40
  40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
  41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
  42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

• John 14:2
  2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
  • Romans 5:13
    13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Jesus stated that when He comes again ALL people will see His return. That could only occur if He was looking forward, as none other could have, and saw our day. Why (how?) could someone in that day make such an astounding, and insane, statement if He didn't know what the future held? And, the fact that we have the capability (since CNN came online in the Gulf war) to see anything anywhere on earth proves Jesus was who He said He was and was God (could see the future from that day). You can't argue about this point. He said it and we have it. When He appears the whole world will see it...and fear for their lives/souls, if they don't know Him. Of course, no Christian will see Him in the sky bc we/they will be there with Him. His next 'coming' is the one to fear, tho.

How odd you should write as if Jesus -- or anybody of his time, really had an understanding of the whole earth. The NT itself makes it very clear that everybody who wrote at the time (and presumably Jesus himself, because he doesn't deny it) thought that you could see the entirety of the earth from atop a mountain. Remember the temptations? So what did Jesus actually think "the whole world" was? Should be obvious from the text!

So Jesus claim that ALL would be able to see him, when taken in that very context, says absolutely nothing about his ability to predict the future.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What have the skeptics said that causes you concern? I've read some of them and find them easy to refute. Simply, get the facts. For ex. The Bible speaks of many things most of us will never know- bc we won't (not can't) do the research. But, Alexander, the 3rd (or, Great) is prophesied. He is not mentioned by name. God tells us 'that' something will happen but rarely 'when' or by who. But it is clear that the Bible is speaking of Alexander, the Great. In fact (bet'cha didn't know this), the Bible accurately predicts he would do what had never been done before. And roughly 250 years later it happened. These are the things that prove the Bible and its God is/are real. Most folks never study the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. They either don't believe them or they do and see no need to research. But w/o research we divide into camps of, often, ignorance and feelings. Get the facts (do the personal research) and you will find the truth whether for or against your feelings or beliefs. At least you will know the truth.

Please provide the prophecy you claim accurately predicts Alexander -- and your assessment of how that prediction is to be read to arrive at that understanding.

By the way, I understand clearly that you are talking about Daniel -- but there's a little problem! Daniel was written AFTER Alexander. It's kind of fascinating how easy it is to get your prophecies right about things that have already happened.

How do I know this? Daniel gets it right up until the life of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (king of Syria who oppressed the Jews, but did not seem to know about his death. Whoever wrote it appears to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Oracles of the Sybil, usually dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

Like I said, it's trivially easy to predict that past correctly!

 

[paarsurrey]

I have stated before that I am a non-believer in Christianity and other religions that pose the risk of going to hell if you do not believe and serve their God. I am here to debate the moral nature of Christianity and those other religions as well as the validity of such religions.

I am in an undecided mindset leaning a bit towards the idea that such religions are fear mongering nonsense, but am not entirely sure which is why I wish to have a debate of my own here. I have read into all the claimed evidence and debates by skeptics and believers and my mindset is an honest, open, undecided mindset. I have truly and honestly tried my best here, but my mindset has to remain undecided and this is an honest mindset I am having here.

Christians, for example, would tell me that is bull because they would claim that I am in denial and only being the fool lying to myself. Now this is an issue that cannot be debated because this is a matter of personal subjective experience. I am in my own mind and only I would know if I were lying to myself or not.

I know that I am not lying to myself. My lack of conviction in Christianity and those other religions is genuine. If, let's pretend, the Christian God were real, then he should understand this and should get me out of hell if I were to go there.

He should of understood that I would of lived my life for him and dedicated my life to him if I believed he were real. Furthermore, if he loves and cares about me so much, then that love and compassion should compel him to try and convince me time and time again through signs and such to try and save me since nothing else has worked to convince me.

What kind of loving person or parent wouldn't take such action and instead just leave their son/daughter to be tormented in hell forever and not get them out? Especially since belief is not a matter of choice and is instead a matter of what your honest open mindset leads you to.

It is as though the Christian God, for example, is saying:

"I am an all loving and all just God. I have had my son sacrificed. So in order for people to be convinced of my existence and of my son's sacrifice, I will just throw some things out there. Namely, the bible that I know many honest open minded people will not be convinced of. But if they still don't believe, then that is just too bad.

Especially for little children who die early and other people in other areas of the world who never got the chance to believe in me. I will not try to convince them any more than this even though I am an all powerful God who is more than capable of trying to do so. So that is all I am going to offer as a means of conviction. So take it or leave it. If you are not convinced and end up in hell, then that is just too bad and I am just going to have to leave you there to suffer for eternity."

So don't you see how such an attitude is not all loving, not all caring/just, and not morally righteous?

Especially for little children who die early and other people in other areas of the world who never got the chance to believe in me.

The truthful religion doesn't say that. The children are innocent and they won't go to hell unless they get matured and do sins purposely knowing that it is sin. Please
Regards

 

[Sonny]

I must have missed them or they were not directed at me. Which prophecies? I've heard of many but seen zero so far pan out.

Do you see christianity and catholosism as different?

First, Catholics have some beliefs that are not from Christianity but they do use the Bible as their only source of Scripture. I'm not sure how the Catholics square them with the Bible. But that is cultic to do.
Fulfilled prophecies -
a 200 million-man Army. That was said when only about 50 million were on earth. Today, it'd be like me saying someday an Army of 28 Billion would exist. Pretty far fetched, huh? It was then too.
Food will become scarce (quart of wheat =day's wage). We see prices rising fast but product shrinking. Bought any cookies lately? More $ but fewer cookies. All foods are that way- pay more, get less.
Earth will be knocked off Axis by massive Meteor (Asteroid, Comet, etc). 2004 showed us it can occur.
Israel became a nation again (1948) after more than 1,900 years . No other nation, Superpower or not, has ever done that.
A round earth. Before anyone considered it, to my knowledge, at least, the Bible taught it. 500 years ago everybody thot/taught the earth was flat.
The Mark of the Beast is coming. Credit cards are only a pre-runner to implanted chips/devices where the Bible's words come true- Mark in hand or forehead. Where else is best for a barcode scanner to scan?
TVs, satellites and electricity prophesied. Keep in mind they didn't call them what we do but it is clear, now, what Jesus meant.
Man and Dinos lived at same time. Evidence is/has surfaced implying just that.
So you see, the Bible proves itself true. And, if it is then no other can be.

 

[Sonny]

Please provide the prophecy you claim accurately predicts Alexander -- and your assessment of how that prediction is to be read to arrive at that understanding.

By the way, I understand clearly that you are talking about Daniel -- but there's a little problem! Daniel was written AFTER Alexander. It's kind of fascinating how easy it is to get your prophecies right about things that have already happened.

How do I know this? Daniel gets it right up until the life of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (king of Syria who oppressed the Jews, but did not seem to know about his death. Whoever wrote it appears to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Oracles of the Sybil, usually dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

Like I said, it's trivially easy to predict that past correctly!

To answer your last point first, Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But you are mistaken about Daniel. The prophecy is in (off the top of my head) Eze and Jer. It was written about 250 years before it occurred - so hindsight is quite impossible. And, it describes (before it happened, remember) that 'he' (A/Great) would build a bridge out to Tyre and destroy the city. The bridge was about a half mile long (history tells us) and A/G used the shoreline city's wood, bricks and dirt to build it- just as it was prophesied. Look it up online bc I don't have time now. Also, look up other fulfilled biblical prophecies. There are hundreds of them. Compare them to other religion's fulfilled prophecies - you will see a big difference.

 

[Sonny]

I gotta agree with that.
Christianity is all about controlling people and telling them what they can and cannot do.

Do you realize that ur rooting for the known loser? He was defeated then kicked out of Heaven. Why are you into him? Doesn't make any sense to me. Personally, I like the winner.

 

[Sonny]

Was this meant to be your question to me? You know that I am LDS right?

God's purpose----his work and his glory----is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind.

Because of Jesus Christ---All mankind will receive the unconditional gift of Immortality through the resurrection. However, the conditional gift of Eternal Life (returning to the highest kingdom of heaven) is reserved only for the faithful.

"The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is designed to bring about both man’s immortality and eternal life. It includes the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement, along with all God-given laws, ordinances, and doctrines. This plan makes it possible for all people to be exalted (gaining Eternal Life) and live forever with God (2 Ne. 2, 9). The scriptures also refer to this plan as the plan of salvation, the plan of redemption, the plan of happiness, and the plan of mercy." Bible Dictionary, The Plan of Redemption.

After the Resurrection (where Immortality is gained) all mankind will go before our Maker to be judged of our faith + works (at the Final Judgment) to be assigned our==rewards of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven has many levels of faithfulness (also referred to as "many mansions"). The highest glory that can be attained in Heaven is referred to as the Celestial Kingdom [Eternal Life], then the lesser Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. Each of these three glories are divided into three levels. For those who do not receive a "mansion in my father's kingdom" they will be CAST-OUT (damned) into outer-darkness in Hell.

Would you show us where the Bible mentions 3 degrees of glory/heaven? Also, show us where the BOM- the most correct book on earth - mentions the 3 degrees. Thanks.

 

[1robin]

It seems you did not read the entirety of this thread yet because if you did, then you would realize that my undecided mindset regarding the claimed evidence has nothing to do with my disagreement with God's moral standards. I am undecided simply because I am undecided and I have searched, but have found no definite answer.

However, my disagreement with God's moral standards and my justifications in the arguments I have presented here for this disagreement has me leaning a bit towards Christianity being nonsense. So I am in an undecided mindset leaning a bit towards Christianity being nonsense. Since there is just no way for me to make a decision based on all the claimed evidence out there, then I wasn't here to debate the validity of the evidence. Rather, I was here to simply debate the moral nature of God.

I cannot debate the validity of the evidence since I am not a scientist or a highly intelligent person who is any good at that. I would have to have a lot of knowledge of science to, for example, attempt to refute the claimed evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin. Not to mention, it would take a lot of scientific knowledge on my part (which I do not have) to even comprehend the types of arguments people are making for and against the Shroud of Turin in scientific terms.

But I am not a trained scientist or philosopher. However, when it comes to debating something that is an intrinsic and valuable part of my life which would be the concept of morality, then I am all for debating that and am good at debating that.

I have my own moral standard that I would gladly put up a debate against the Christian God's moral standard. So I will continue to do that right now here in this very post. Therefore, I would like to continue by saying that it doesn't matter who you are. I don't care if you are famous, have high status/wealth, are a genius, have made a loving sacrifice for me and for others, or if you are the all powerful creator of the universe. That gives you no authority over my life or over the lives of others.

To just barge and intrude into my life or into the lives of others, judge our ways of living as sinful, and tell us that we must obey or go to hell and never get out, then that is serious disrespect and is cruel. It doesn't matter who you are--I will treat you as being any other normal human being out there in the world who is expected to show respect towards the values and personal lives of others.

Each person has his/her life to live and God should be no exception. He should keep to his own life, not intrude into the lives of others, show respect, and not judge us as sinful. I mean, I could understand it if I was someone cruel harming and torturing others. I would agree then that there should be some intervention for something like that. But as long as I am not doing that, then there is no reason to intrude into my personal life, tell me that I am going to hell if I don't do this and that, and that I am a sinner.

There is no justified reason why someone like me should go to hell in the first place. A truly all loving, all just, and morally righteous God would welcome someone like me into his heavenly kingdom after looking upon my life here on Earth and respecting my way of life since it imposed no harm/torture upon others. But if there was harm and torture imposed, then they would be trivial matters such as yelling at my mother. But nothing serious deserving of an eternal hell of torment. Not that I agree such a place should exist in the first place for anybody regardless of how wicked they are.

Lastly, even if someone was somehow deserving of an eternal torment in hell, then the moment they go there, my love would compel me to get them out. My love would simply not allow them to remain there. It would be asinine, absurd, and daft of me to just sit there and weep over them and not get them out of hell when I am an all powerful God who can. But if I were to laugh, rejoice, become apathetic, etc. towards this person's eternal torment in hell, then I would just be plain vile and cruel.

Look at the first sentence in your post and compare it to the last.

A. Up top you said that your problems with belief in God have nothing to do with God's moral standards.
B. You ended by saying you believe God is vile or cruel because of how he might treat you.

Now by the law of non-contradiction both of those statements cannot be true. One can be, none can be, but both can't be true. So which one, if either is true?

Basically your saying that God must do as you wish you wish or he does not exist. It seems what you want a God that offers either compulsory annihilation, damnation, or heaven for everyone regardless of whether it is Hitler or Billy graham. That would be the most unjust God imaginable.

However, forget all that. I gave you specific historical claims among hundreds I can post that the best rained scholars (NT historians) believe are reliable. You said you do not know anything about that evidence. So if you know nothing about the evidence for God's existence then what again are you basing your denial on. If you know nothing about evidence then preference is all that is left. You did not even ask for me to give you more evidence. I do not think evidence has anything to do with your position.

 

[Sonny]

How odd you should write as if Jesus -- or anybody of his time, really had an understanding of the whole earth. The NT itself makes it very clear that everybody who wrote at the time (and presumably Jesus himself, because he doesn't deny it) thought that you could see the entirety of the earth from atop a mountain. Remember the temptations? So what did Jesus actually think "the whole world" was? Should be obvious from the text!

So Jesus claim that ALL would be able to see him, when taken in that very context, says absolutely nothing about his ability to predict the future.

It isn't taken in that context, tho. He said it in relation to His next appearance, the Rapture. He also exposed others before they came on earth's stage by saying if they say they have seen the Christ they are liars (paraphrased but spot on).