Those arguments are kinda flawed(in the link you gave) and I probably could discuss everyone, but I will not waste my time on doing so. I also can see that the author has little understanding of interpreting the Bible and is not reading but looking for things that look like contradictions.

This "this argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why" argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why

You are right when you say that the author found contradictions because he looked for them, and that could apply to anything. But on the other hand, maybe you only see the truth in that book because you were told beforehand that it was the truth so you believed it and only saw truth in it. So yeah, I can't prove you are wrong, neither can I prove the author of the list of contradictions is right, but same, you can't say you are right and the author is wrong

how would it be a waste of your time to study the book that you believe holds the world's ultimate truths?

as for myself, it was studying the bible that led me to stop believing in it. i started out reading it believing exactly as you do, but, the more i read, the more obvious it seemed that it was not a contiguous whole but rather a big jumble of contradictory writings from hundreds of different authors. the jesus portrayed in the gospels is completely unlike the jesus described by his self-proclaimed disciple, paul. similarly, the world described in the old testament (complete with the Hades like She'ol etcetera) is completely unlike the one described by jesus, which, in turn is completely unlike the one described by paul, which, in turn, is completely unlike the one described by the catholic church and so on. there are little things all throughout as well, like jesus claiming that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples had died, that just don't work.

again, how is it a trap if all it's asking of you is to actually look at the book you profess to believe. have you ever read the thing straight through, from cover to cover? i've done so ~6 times, along with intensive studies with churches, youth groups, and religious camps with protestants, mormons, catholics, and even the eastern orthodox church (the amount of incense burned by the latter left me coughing up phlegm for a week)

When you consider the amount of time and other resources spent on religion and how it directly (and indirectly) influences the lives of billions of people through its influence on political ideology, then yes I say it's very important to decide whether He exists or not. (Although I guess it's more important to decide whether the holy scripts are true or not)

yes, i know paul's story. it's said that he murdered christians up until when he was met on the road to damascus by the image of jesus, scolded ("whatever you have done against them has been done against me as well"), struck blind. he then repented, had his eyesight restored via ananias, and set off to convert all the gentiles. the next several years are a group of exciting adventures, hanging out with his buddy luke the doctor and protege titus, visiting towns and speaking out against idols, being thrown into prison and released via earthquake, escaping from a town in a wicker basket, shouting at peter about having people circumcised, writing half of the new testament in the form of letters to church plants all around the mediterranean, etc. eventually, he got it in his head that he had to go convert the emperor, nero, so he set off on a journey,was shipwrecked on the island of malta, was bitten by a poisonous snake and did not die, arrived in rome, was placed under house arrest for several years (during which time he wrote more letters), and then was killed.

paul also made up (or at least propogated) a good deal of doctrine that jesus did not (in the gospels, at least). things like "being saved by faith alone" (jesus preaches a message of good works. "you must take up your cross and follow me.", "give up your riches and your pride, or you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven", "if something is keeping you from following me and doing as i do, cut it off and throw it away, for it is better to go to heaven without that thing than to be thrown into hell with it", etc).

oh, by the way, the only times that the word "hell" is used in the gospels is in reference to being sent there when doing something bad (Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 18:9, Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:33, Mark 9:43 and following, Luke 12:5. it never once says what "hell" actually is.

as for jesus saying he would return before all his disciples had died, see Matthew 16:28. jesus is talking to his disciples and telling them how they should act in his absence and then tells them, explicitely, that he will be back to initiate his kingdom before the last of them is dead.

this is all from the standard, protestant-approved version of the bible, of course, because i don't have any others with me and don't know any of the other flavours (catholic version, which includes macabees etcetera). in reference to that, there were a myriad of different gospels, "first hand accounts", and doctrines introduced in the early days of the church, and it wasn't until The Ecumenical Councils (particularly the First Council of Nicea) that the church officially decided upon what was to be truth and what thrown out as heresy, in the process introducing quite a bit of new doctrine that had been invented since those early books had been written.

---

When you consider the amount of time and other resources spent on religion and how it directly (and indirectly) influences the lives of billions of people through its influence on political ideology, then yes I say it's very important to decide whether He exists or not. (Although I guess it's more important to decide whether the holy scripts are true or not)

there is actually a fairly strong argument for the existence of religion being a positive influence on the world. yes, you can say whatever you like about crusades etc, but the primary driving factor behind those is always humans desiring for power or being bigotted against others, with their religions being used as a convenient excuse to continue acting that way. they would act out against their fellow humans regardless. yes, it may be true that it exacerbates it in some situations, but it's also true that religion is a calming, comforting influence in the lives of billions. studies have consistently shown that people who are able to convince themselves of the validity of some religion that offers a promise of an "ultimate purpose" for their lives are, on average, happier people than those who cannot.

you are taking that verse entirely out of context. the situation in the passage is that jesus is speaking directly to his apostles, telling them what to do when he has physically left their presence. he then follows that direction immediately with the promise that he will return before they have all died. also, the john who wrote the book of revelation is not the john you think he is, but, rather, john of patmos. lastly, if you want to bring revelation into this, it is a book widely regarded as not being about some far distant future, but about christianity's persecution at the hand of Rome. see Revelation 17. Rome is traditionally called "Babylon" and "The city of seven hills", was the seat of the greatest empire that europe has ever known, was notorious for its lavishness and sexual promiscuity, and was a place where christians were killed in various brutal manners on a large scale in an attempt to eradicate them entirely ("I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.").

It is obvious what hell is, from even what is described there in the passages that you provided. Also I believe there are references to hell in the old testament, but I would rather not look those up right now, as it is late.

Hell was actually portrayed originally as a dark, Hades-like place where everyone was cast in an eternal sleep. It wasn't a place of punishment, but more like a place of imprisonment. Which would make sense, as it would have derived from Greek and Roman cultures which were the two dominant in the area.

Hell itself is not accurately described. There are a few (reeally vague) passages, but the idea of Hell as an inferno was popularized by works like Dante's Inferno. In the US it was popularized by Jonathan Edward's sermons who was Puritan.

However, I really like what this guy has to say on it, and his theory of what Hell actually is, should it exist.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?85849-Hell-does-not-exist-according-to-the-bible!

Not a place of punishment, actually nonexistence.

Also, I think this is relevant to this thread, surprised I haven't seen it in here yet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

Can't say it was necessary of him to do so, I but I suppose I can appreciate it as a warm gesture, nonetheless.