A Cumulative Case for Christianity

[Thethingaboutitis]

He claims to have come here for a discussion.
Yet, .... in spite of the fact that that his deity has been proven to be evil and NOT have "objective morality" he continues to preach it and proclaim it.
Obviously, nothing anyone here has to say is regarded as having any value.
He is not now, nor ever will be a member of this community.
He's worthwhile as a "fencing foil". That's about it.

Never heard the fencing foil saying. We always say as worthwhile as an ashtray on a motorbike.

[adey67]

   The Bible is a collection of 66 different books that include various literary genres and different styles of writing, such as historical narrative, mytho-history, poetry, prophecy, parables, letters, and apocalyptic literature. When the text talks about talking serpents and magical trees (as in Genesis) or "all the trees of the fields will clap there hands" (as in Psalms), or the dragon and the rider on a horse with a sword coming out of his mouth (as in Revelations), I think we can apply some common sense.

Even though you have me on ignore I'm-a-gonna reply anyway.

Yes, we CAN use common sense.  People do not come back from the dead. 

The New Testament writers retrofitted Jesus into the messiah role using literary devices and manipulating the stories to fit what they thought were old testament prophecies, most of which are not prophecies at all or were completely misinterpreted.   

We know through Joshephus' writings that John the Baptist was executed after Herod Antipas marriage to Herodias which was in 34 CE, so Mr. Baptist was executed in 35 or 36, after the crucifixion of Jesus. So the NT is wrong.   It's wrong about the census in Luke.   Mark has so many geographical problems he doesn't know east from west so whoever wrote the "Mark" never set foot in Palestine.  

The stories are maniuplated and contrived.  We know the sun didn't go dark for three hours. We know the Sanhedrin didn't meet during the holy week of Passover.  It was completely forbidden by Jewish law. The only place the Sanhedrin was allowed to met was inside the Temple and only in the Hall of the Hewn Stone, and never, ever during Passover.  So three of the writers have that completely wrong. 

By the time John writes his Jesus story in 90 CE  the Sanhedrin had scattered after the Temple destruction. Some reassembled in Syria.   So "John" write a different version.  He has Jesus brought privately before a high priest who interrigates him. This is another reason John is dated so late.   

There are three different versions of Judas' death and if you count the story written by Papias then there are 4 different stories. 

The Jesus stories are not true. They are a fictional accounts written by later Greek writers. The apostles of Jesus were illiterate and couldn't have written in the highly educated and aristocratic style they are written in.    Frankly, you don't use common sense and never have.

Well you know the real reason you're on ignore don't you?
You're making sense and arguments that cannot easily be refuted, the religious tend to go "full ostrich" when that happens.

[airportkid]

... We always say as worthwhile as an ashtray on a motorbike ...

but practical.

[Minimalist]

My mental image of Stevie.....

[adey67]

My mental image of Stevie.....

I think its most of our mental image of him to be fair.

[Dancefortwo]

Few people in antiquity could read.  Fewer could write. 

Boy, you got that right!   I came across this.  It's all the strict rules about the reading and handling of the Talmud.  I may have posted this before in this thread but it's worth posting again.

"In a city where only one person is able to read [from the Torah scroll] he reads all the prescribed sections, provided he sits down between the reading of one section and the next." 

In cities there were a few more people who could read as opposed to rural areas where no one could read, but even in the Talmud it's acknowledging that cities have a high rate of illiteracy.  

Here are some more regulations about the reading of the Torah....

 If one lends a Torah scroll to his friend, the latter may not lend it to another person. If one deposits a Torah scroll with his friend, the latter must unroll it once in twelve months. If he is capable of reading it, he may do so, but if he unrolled it for his own benefit, reading it is forbidden. Symmachos said: He unrolls a new scroll once in thirty days and an old one once in twelve months. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: Both a new and an old scroll [should be unrolled] once in twelve months.  

 

It's all in this website which has very strict and detailed rules about everything and anything to do with the Torah.  It's kinda crazy but what it demonstrates is that  few people had access to the Torah.  It was only the elite Jews who were allowed to read it or even touch it.  The Torah certainly wasn't sitting around the houses of Jewish folks to unroll when ever they pleased.    Jesus and his followers would have been completely illiterate.   

Bucky might be interested in reading this.  

https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Soferim...l&lang2=en

[Minimalist]

 Jesus and his followers would have been completely illiterate.   

That still seems to be the case.

[Thethingaboutitis]

Seems to me like the whole religion relies on the concept of original sin. The creator knew in advance that 'the fall' would occur, in fact he manufactured it.

The being that constructed galaxies and solar systems made the decision to deliberately tempt his children with forbidden fruit fully aware that they would disobey him.

So god ruined the relationship with mankind, not the other way around. Therefore sin isn't a thing and he didn't need to sacrifice his precious son.

God, a genius on one hand, an idiot on the other.

[airportkid]

God, a genius on one hand, an idiot on the other.

Exactly what would be expected of something fully man made.

[Minimalist]

Did you ever notice that this allegedly omniscient 'god' is always surprised when his schemes don't work out so well?

15 Now the day before Saul came, the Lord had revealed this to Samuel: 16 “About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin. Anoint him ruler over my people Israel; he will deliver them from the hand of the Philistines. I have looked on my people, for their cry has reached me.”

17 When Samuel caught sight of Saul, the Lord said to him, “This is the man I spoke to you about; he will govern my people.”

1 Sam 9

But somewhat later......

10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:11"I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.

1 Samuel 15

How come this fucking god jackass didn't know this would happen when he appointed Saul in the first place?  Not very godly to fuck up like that, is it?

[Bucky Ball]

There's a lot there in that story and why (basically) ... it was the priests (as written later in the story), who were pissed at Saul for having over-stepped his "bounds", when he himself offered a sacrifice, which threatened the priestly office. I have a paper on it, I'll get and post it. It's all about priests and politics, and how they slammed each other.

DF2 is right. No one sat around reading anything. The Torah of Moses was not even in existence at the time of Saul, and when it was, it was rolled up and locked up, and no one except the priests had access to it. The reading of the Torah is incredibly complex and debated, but what is clear, it was always a ceremonial and never included "casual reading" by anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_read...udic%20era.

[Minimalist]

Yeah....god always seems to do what the fucking priests want.

God must like to fuck little boys, too.

[SteveII]

I didn't say particular books could be disregarded. I am saying that we have to use some common sense in our hermeneutics. You're overselling the massacre theme. It is a few verses among 30,000 all confined to a narrow time of which the account we have was written many centuries later. Your logic goes something like an error calls into question all contents. But that's just a category error. An error in retelling of a specific military effort within a verse or two is not the same as King Saul did not exist. It is an even larger category error to compare (as you did) a historical detail of an insignificant story and a passage that was meant to convey a theological point or moral command. These have plenty of run-up, context, reasoning, examples, and consequences, etc. Good hermeneutical practice is to understand what the author would have understood to be the purpose of his passage to be.

Look at 1 Samuel 15. The purpose was not to make a moral statement. It was describing an event and campaign.

Now look at runup and context of the 10 Commandments in Deuteronomy 5. Look at chapters 4 and 6. These texts are not in the same category.

There is also the very appropriate test to see if the concept is supported, is neutral, or is contradicted elsewhere in the Bible.

On the other hand, there are scholars that just embrace the commands in those couple of passages to kill everyone. They reason is that God has the prerogative to judge a culture that probably practiced child sacrifice and all manner of things that will end the entire city in hell anyway. It was a mercy to future generations that would follow. All legit reasoning to consider. There have been entire books written on this subject. I think the takeaway is that we don't know. What I do know is that the issue is not as simplistic as the typical atheist bullet point want you to believe.

Those 'few' verses only only one case of several that show a horrid *immorality* on the part of YHWH. The fact that *anyone* can try to rationalize the morality of what is described is just one example of how n promotes *immorality*.

Quite simply, if your doctrine allows or encourages genocide to 'save' innocent children where those children are then killed, then your doctrine is evil. Any attempt to rationalize it is evil. Any attempt to say it is better for future generations is evil.

That your religion condones or even attempts to whitewash this sort of thing only shows it is evil.

And, again, this is far from being the only case of blatant evil dictated by YHWH in the OT. The conclusion is that your deity is an evil monster. The *only* good thing about it is that it is fictional.

I have tried to point out that there are good reasons to think the stories are not true. I have tried to point out how insignificant the mentions in the larger picture or the Bible and that everything else in the Bible make it likely that God did not say those few verses. Because you seem have a preconceived narrative incapable of a nuanced discussion, let's do a little exercise to test your position.

Let's say God did say those things in those few verses (which I sill doubt). WHY is God commanding those things considered 'evil'? On what basis exactly do you define evil? You can't use a Judeo-Christian morality, because you deny it exists.

Lastly, what other cases of "blatant evil" did God dictate? And on what basis were those things 'evil'?

[Inkubus]

Lastly, what other cases of "blatant evil" did God dictate? And on what basis were those things 'evil'?

Isaiah 13:9–16
"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." 

Psalms 137:8–9 NRSV
"O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"

[Dancefortwo]

Lastly, what other cases of "blatant evil" did God dictate? And on what basis were those things 'evil'?

Isaiah 13:9–16
"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." 

Psalms 137:8–9 NRSV
"O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"

Exactly!   But Stevie doesn't read most of the replies in this thread because he has 90% of us on ignore so don't get your hopes up to much that he'll even read your reply.

[SteveII]

I have no idea how that connects to the comment above, but anyway, you are wrong. You don't know what you are talking about because you do not know very much about the contents of the Bible

The Bible isn't Christianity Steve. I am talking to you about the belief and the conception of God by Christians in centuries past. The vision of God is not based only on scriptures nor are the treaties of theologians. Religions are organic things and for the immense majority of Christian history most Christians were illiterate and educated in religion by barely literate priests in the first place. The Bible isn't the best or "truest place" where God resides and is defined.

You are very mistaken here. The conception of God does comes from the texts (as a collection) and not somewhere else and is backfilled by scripture. You are also probably also missing the idea that we know more and more as the Bible progresses, not that it contradicts earlier passages, but adds more information (called progressive revelation). It is sometimes the accumulation of hundreds of passages that informs a particular doctrine--like the doctrine of God. There is nothing organic about Christianity. I read the same material that Augustine did in 300BC. I come to the same conclusions. Don't confuse me with a Catholic.

Did you know that Job was probably the oldest book of the OT? (pre-Israelites) The concept of God is thoroughly explored with even a conversation between Job and God. Interesting book.

Indeed, it's a quite interesting book since in it, God is neither all powerful nor all knowing, definitely an active agent in people's lives and absolutely not all good either. It depicts God as a king, ready to make bets with his own servents. As is the saying in Isaiah where God is described as the creator of all evil and darkness (and of light too which is mirrored in the Alpha and Omega speach of Revelation) which indicates that God being all good is not in his nature though the later quote make claims to omnipotence that God doesn't display in Job. We could quote God calling himself vengeful and jealous; not exactly the nicest of all traits which he does in multiple occasions. Then we could quote several passages where God commands genocides to round the list of a not so benevolent divinity. Then there is the largely non-scriptural doctrine of hell which makes the entire thing even more dubious.

Then I could quote God's defeat to Hittites, the fiasco of the Garden of Eden, the fear of the tower of Babel to show his lack of omnipotence, the failed prophecy surrounding the city of Tyre as signs that God's omnipotence and omniscience are not quite perfect. We could argue about God and the strange wrestling match in Genesis, but that's an entirely other story.

A great passage that shows that God may not always be all great, all wise and all powerful nature of God can also be seen in the shifting last words of Jesus on the cross with Mark and Matthew having him cry out: "My God why have you forsaken me!". This seems to both show God as cruel and Jesus as a simple man and is often referred as such by theologians though some others have attempted some fairly original mental gymnastic about sin transference and dubious magical rules.

Clearly, you don't know much about the content of the Bible if you think that God is consistently being presented as a being of absolute power, wisdom and benevolence. It's hard to take seriously when God screams that he is jealous, wrathful and vengeful that he infinitely good and compassionate because that's what some other people in other texts have said about God. Unless of course, after excusing genocide, you will start to justify jealousy and vengeance as actually good things too.

Sure, in your conception and reading of Scripture God is all those things, but there is just one problem with it. Your conception and reading of scripture is neither the only one nor, de facto, the best one. It's just a point of view with some scriptural justification, but I to can justify the existence of a imperfect, not all powerful God as described in the Bible.

Actually, you are not doing a good job of painting a picture of "an imperfect, not all powerful God as described in the Bible". Taking passages and English words out of their context only shows that you don't understand the concepts or the passages.
You can't fall back on 'it's just your interpretation' because you are granting the text for the sake of your argument--so we deal with the texts.

You are making arguments with no references, no connections to the beliefs of the author or the people at the time, no attempt at context, no attempt at placing your characterization into a systematic theology with all the other verses that apply. It seems you are working off some list that you think make good counter points. Let's look our your collection from above.

Job: useful imagery in a poetic book. God is not physical in any way, he is not actually sitting on a throne somewhere. People do not come for visits. The book is a complete story with a purpose to show the nature of God and explores how we should approach the idea of why bad things happen--it's an impressive theodicy--for 'Bronze-age goat herders' as atheists like to say.

In Isaiah 45:7, it is also in poetic verse (did you actually read the context of God introducing himself to Cyrus, a Persian?).  Light/Darkness; good/evil = talks about God's sovereignty over everything. BUT, did you look up the Hebrew words? It is specifically not moral evil. All modern translations use the word calamity. So, the ESV:
     7       I form light and create darkness;
     I make well-being and create calamity;
     I am the LORD, who does all these things.

I am unsure of your point from Revelations. An eternal God can indeed be described as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

I have heard atheist repeat this a lot. Jesus talked about Hell plenty:  Matthew 5:22, 5:29-30, 10:28, 18:9, and 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 12:5 and 16:19-31

I am unsure how the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel shows anything about God's omnipotence. Provide some references (understand the context) and we'll see. Tyre seems random in this list because if a prophesy did not come true (or partially true in this case), then that would be on the prophet or the understanding of what the prophet was talking about would be the issue, not God's omniscience. Very random and indicates you are reading from a list and not your personal knowledge.

Jesus on the cross. That's going to get into some deeper theological concepts (which I will do if you want), but Jesus' words don't mean what you have extrapolated from them. Why was Jesus on the cross? What was he representing? He was human, he was also God. What do all those things mean together? Don't you think that might be a little more nuanced than "God was cruel"? Dismissing it all as "dubious magical rules" is nonsense because you are granting the truth of the story to make your point.

So, like I said above, it is sometimes the accumulation of hundreds of passages that informs a particular doctrine (especially the doctrine of God). You would have to do a lot more studying to come up with a compelling list of problems with our conception of God. It will not come from some list that atheists share around.

[Dancefortwo]

The Bible isn't Christianity Steve. I am talking to you about the belief and the conception of God by Christians in centuries past. The vision of God is not based only on scriptures nor are the treaties of theologians. Religions are organic things and for the immense majority of Christian history most Christians were illiterate and educated in religion by barely literate priests in the first place. The Bible isn't the best or "truest place" where God resides and is defined.

You are very mistaken here. The conception of God does comes from the texts (as a collection) and not somewhere else and is backfilled by scripture. You are also probably also missing the idea that we know more and more as the Bible progresses, not that it contradicts earlier passages, but adds more information (called progressive revelation). It is sometimes the accumulation of hundreds of passages that informs a particular doctrine--like the doctrine of God. There is nothing organic about Christianity. I read the same material that Augustine did in 300BC. I come to the same conclusions. Don't confuse me with a Catholic.

Indeed, it's a quite interesting book since in it, God is neither all powerful nor all knowing, definitely an active agent in people's lives and absolutely not all good either. It depicts God as a king, ready to make bets with his own servents. As is the saying in Isaiah where God is described as the creator of all evil and darkness (and of light too which is mirrored in the Alpha and Omega speach of Revelation) which indicates that God being all good is not in his nature though the later quote make claims to omnipotence that God doesn't display in Job. We could quote God calling himself vengeful and jealous; not exactly the nicest of all traits which he does in multiple occasions. Then we could quote several passages where God commands genocides to round the list of a not so benevolent divinity. Then there is the largely non-scriptural doctrine of hell which makes the entire thing even more dubious.

Then I could quote God's defeat to Hittites, the fiasco of the Garden of Eden, the fear of the tower of Babel to show his lack of omnipotence, the failed prophecy surrounding the city of Tyre as signs that God's omnipotence and omniscience are not quite perfect. We could argue about God and the strange wrestling match in Genesis, but that's an entirely other story.

A great passage that shows that God may not always be all great, all wise and all powerful nature of God can also be seen in the shifting last words of Jesus on the cross with Mark and Matthew having him cry out: "My God why have you forsaken me!". This seems to both show God as cruel and Jesus as a simple man and is often referred as such by theologians though some others have attempted some fairly original mental gymnastic about sin transference and dubious magical rules.

Clearly, you don't know much about the content of the Bible if you think that God is consistently being presented as a being of absolute power, wisdom and benevolence. It's hard to take seriously when God screams that he is jealous, wrathful and vengeful that he infinitely good and compassionate because that's what some other people in other texts have said about God. Unless of course, after excusing genocide, you will start to justify jealousy and vengeance as actually good things too.

Sure, in your conception and reading of Scripture God is all those things, but there is just one problem with it. Your conception and reading of scripture is neither the only one nor, de facto, the best one. It's just a point of view with some scriptural justification, but I to can justify the existence of a imperfect, not all powerful God as described in the Bible.

Actually, you are not doing a good job of painting a picture of "an imperfect, not all powerful God as described in the Bible". Taking passages and English words out of their context only shows that you don't understand the concepts or the passages.
You can't fall back on 'it's just your interpretation' because you are granting the text for the sake of your argument--so we deal with the texts.

You are making arguments with no references, no connections to the beliefs of the author or the people at the time, no attempt at context, no attempt at placing your characterization into a systematic theology with all the other verses that apply. It seems you are working off some list that you think make good counter points. Let's look our your collection from above.

Job: useful imagery in a poetic book. God is not physical in any way, he is not actually sitting on a throne somewhere. People do not come for visits. The book is a complete story with a purpose to show the nature of God and explores how we should approach the idea of why bad things happen--it's an impressive theodicy--for 'Bronze-age goat herders' as atheists like to say.

In Isaiah 45:7, it is also in poetic verse (did you actually read the context of God introducing himself to Cyrus, a Persian?).  Light/Darkness; good/evil = talks about God's sovereignty over everything. BUT, did you look up the Hebrew words? It is specifically not moral evil. All modern translations use the word calamity. So, the ESV:
     7       I form light and create darkness;
     I make well-being and create calamity;
     I am the LORD, who does all these things.

I am unsure of your point from Revelations. An eternal God can indeed be described as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

I have heard atheist repeat this a lot. Jesus talked about Hell plenty:  Matthew 5:22, 5:29-30, 10:28, 18:9, and 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 12:5 and 16:19-31

I am unsure how the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel shows anything about God's omnipotence. Provide some references (understand the context) and we'll see. Tyre seems random in this list because if a prophesy did not come true (or partially true in this case), then that would be on the prophet or the understanding of what the prophet was talking about would be the issue, not God's omniscience. Very random and indicates you are reading from a list and not your personal knowledge.

Jesus on the cross. That's going to get into some deeper theological concepts (which I will do if you want), but Jesus' words don't mean what you have extrapolated from them. Why was Jesus on the cross? What was he representing? He was human, he was also God. What do all those things mean together? Don't you think that might be a little more nuanced than "God was cruel"? Dismissing it all as "dubious magical rules" is nonsense because you are granting the truth of the story to make your point.

So, like I said above, it is sometimes the accumulation of hundreds of passages that informs a particular doctrine (especially the doctrine of God). You would have to do a lot more studying to come up with a compelling list of problems with our conception of God. It will not come from some list that atheists share around.

It doesn't matter if it's translated as "calamity" or "evil".  The question still stands: Why would an omniscient "loving" god create people knowing in advance that they would, by their own free will, make a sinful choice and burn in hell?

[SteveII]

Lastly, what other cases of "blatant evil" did God dictate? And on what basis were those things 'evil'?

Isaiah 13:9–16
"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." 

Psalms 137:8–9 NRSV
"O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"

It's a slow day...

So I don't get sucked into a cut-n-paste debate, tell me what you think is going on in Isaiah 13 and what God's role is and what does it mean for a thing to be God's judgement? Did the Persians have freewill and how are we to square that with the prophesy?

[Inkubus]

Exactly!   But Stevie doesn't read most of the replies in this thread because he has 90% of us on ignore so don't get your hopes up to much that he'll even read your reply.

Aye, it's funny how that works. We are closed minded for questioning his assertions but he is so open mined that the instant he comes across an awkward question the poster goes straight on ignore.

[SteveII]

You are very mistaken here. The conception of God does comes from the texts (as a collection) and not somewhere else and is backfilled by scripture. You are also probably also missing the idea that we know more and more as the Bible progresses, not that it contradicts earlier passages, but adds more information (called progressive revelation). It is sometimes the accumulation of hundreds of passages that informs a particular doctrine--like the doctrine of God. There is nothing organic about Christianity. I read the same material that Augustine did in 300BC. I come to the same conclusions. Don't confuse me with a Catholic.


Actually, you are not doing a good job of painting a picture of "an imperfect, not all powerful God as described in the Bible". Taking passages and English words out of their context only shows that you don't understand the concepts or the passages.
You can't fall back on 'it's just your interpretation' because you are granting the text for the sake of your argument--so we deal with the texts.

You are making arguments with no references, no connections to the beliefs of the author or the people at the time, no attempt at context, no attempt at placing your characterization into a systematic theology with all the other verses that apply. It seems you are working off some list that you think make good counter points. Let's look our your collection from above.

Job: useful imagery in a poetic book. God is not physical in any way, he is not actually sitting on a throne somewhere. People do not come for visits. The book is a complete story with a purpose to show the nature of God and explores how we should approach the idea of why bad things happen--it's an impressive theodicy--for 'Bronze-age goat herders' as atheists like to say.

In Isaiah 45:7, it is also in poetic verse (did you actually read the context of God introducing himself to Cyrus, a Persian?).  Light/Darkness; good/evil = talks about God's sovereignty over everything. BUT, did you look up the Hebrew words? It is specifically not moral evil. All modern translations use the word calamity. So, the ESV:
     7       I form light and create darkness;
     I make well-being and create calamity;
     I am the LORD, who does all these things.

I am unsure of your point from Revelations. An eternal God can indeed be described as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

I have heard atheist repeat this a lot. Jesus talked about Hell plenty:  Matthew 5:22, 5:29-30, 10:28, 18:9, and 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 12:5 and 16:19-31

I am unsure how the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel shows anything about God's omnipotence. Provide some references (understand the context) and we'll see. Tyre seems random in this list because if a prophesy did not come true (or partially true in this case), then that would be on the prophet or the understanding of what the prophet was talking about would be the issue, not God's omniscience. Very random and indicates you are reading from a list and not your personal knowledge.

Jesus on the cross. That's going to get into some deeper theological concepts (which I will do if you want), but Jesus' words don't mean what you have extrapolated from them. Why was Jesus on the cross? What was he representing? He was human, he was also God. What do all those things mean together? Don't you think that might be a little more nuanced than "God was cruel"? Dismissing it all as "dubious magical rules" is nonsense because you are granting the truth of the story to make your point.

So, like I said above, it is sometimes the accumulation of hundreds of passages that informs a particular doctrine (especially the doctrine of God). You would have to do a lot more studying to come up with a compelling list of problems with our conception of God. It will not come from some list that atheists share around.

It doesn't matter if it's translated as "calamity" or "evil".  The question still stands: Why would an omniscient "loving" god create people knowing in advance that they would, by their own free will, make a sinful choice and burn in hell?

Because everyone has an opportunity to respond to God and a certain percentage of people will -- and that seems to be a higher good that no one existing at all. I would be interested to see an argument laid out that shows that it is not.

[Minimalist]

Exactly!   But Stevie doesn't read most of the replies in this thread because he has 90% of us on ignore so don't get your hopes up to much that he'll even read your reply.

Preachers don't like to have their sermons interrupted.... as if the shitheads have anything to say worth hearing to begin with.

[Inkubus]

Your internal state of love is a subjective experience. It is an opinion. That you have that internal state, when it can be tested, becomes an objective fact (or not). So, the presence of that internal state might well show up on a brain scan and thereby becomes an objective question. Your actions can  also betray the existence of that internal state and are objective facts.

It's a slow day...

So I don't get sucked into a cut-n-paste debate, tell me what you think is going on in Isaiah 13 and what God's role is and what does it mean for a thing to be God's judgement? Did the Persians have freewill and how are we to square that with the prophesy?

Straight out of Dinesh D'Souza's handbook. When asked an awkward question counter it with an utterly irrelevant question of your own.

Pathetic.

Edit: Has someone been fucking with the quote function again?

[Bucky Ball]

Romans 11:32 - 34
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways.
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Who ? Stevie, that's who.

[SteveII]

Seems to me like the whole religion relies on the concept of original sin. The creator knew in advance that 'the fall' would occur, in fact he manufactured it.

The being that constructed galaxies and solar systems made the decision to deliberately tempt his children with forbidden fruit fully aware that they would disobey him.

So god ruined the relationship with mankind, not the other way around. Therefore sin isn't a thing and he didn't need to sacrifice his precious son.

God, a genius on one hand, an idiot on the other.

That is not what 'original sin' means. That's a totally different doctrine than what you are talking about.

It would be nice if you characterize the belief accurately: If God created us with freewill, then we, by definition, have the ability to sin. I believe the case is airtight that if we have freewill, we will eventually sin no matter what the circumstances. So it was actually impossible for God to make a world of freewill creatures that did not contain sin. The question then becomes, how did God respond that that inevitability?

I, and most Christian, believe the Garden of Eden story allegorical. The truth the events teach are real, the actual details are not.

[Bucky Ball]

So it was actually impossible for God to make a world of freewill creatures that did not contain sin. The question then becomes, how did God respond that that inevitability? "

Thanks for telling us you reject the omnipotence of your deity.
If your god is constrained by what you consider "impossible", and constrained somehow by a "reality" (which it could not have, therefore, created), then who created this reality in which it exists.

You're just so full of shit.

Tell us Stevie, who created the reality in which your deity exists and is constrained ?
So much for First Cause.

You are dismissed.