If God existed, under these conditions, would there be any atheists?

[QuestioningMind]

Fair enough, I looked for holes in your argument but it was carefully thought through so I could not find anything that jumped out at me. However, what you said would only apply if God had done what would be within his omnipotent power to do in order to prove to everyone that He exists AND everyone was thereby convinced that God existed by the evidence God provided. The OP does not say the atheists would all be convinced; it says that God used His omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists. IF everyone was not convinced by the evidence, then some people might still be atheists.

But now I want to point out something that immediately came to mind as I was reading your first paragraph:

You said: Here's the difference in my opinion. You and I both agree that there is MORE than enough evidence to accept that the Earth is a sphere. It's OBVIOUS to both us and to most people. However, as reliable and verifiable and WE might find all of the evidence, there are people who genuinely do NOT see the same evidence we see as reliable evidence. They've been convinced that it's 'made up' evidence, they've deluded themselves into believing that it's all a huge conspiracy to fool people into FALSELY believing that the Earth really isn't flat. No one has ever shown them the evidence that THEY would require to accept the truth that the Earth really IS a sphere... what that 'evidence' may or may not be, I have no idea. And until someone does show them that elusive evidence, they'll continue to have a lack of belief that the Earth is round.

So here is what came to mind. Hypothetically speaking, what if there was MORE than enough evidence to accept that God exists. It's OBVIOUS to most people (93% of the world population who are believers) that God exists. However, as reliable (although not verifiable) WE believers might find all of the evidence, there are atheists who genuinely do NOT see the same evidence we see as reliable evidence. They've been convinced that it's 'made up' evidence, that all the Messengers of God that have come throughout human history are either deluded or con-men, so these atheists have deluded themselves into believing that religion is all a huge conspiracy to fool people into FALSELY believing that God exists. No one has ever shown these atheists the evidence that THEY would require to accept the truth that God exists... what that 'evidence' may or may not be, I have no idea. And until someone does show them that elusive evidence, they'll continue to have a lack of belief that God exists, even though God does exist.

It's OBVIOUS to most people (93% of the world population who are believers) that God exists.

Actually I don't think that's quite accurate. 93% of people may claim to have a belief in something they call a god, but since there are endless definition of what god is you can't really claim that 93% of people believe in the same thing. Now if 93% of people claimed to believe in the exact same god that might carry a bit more weight... but not much, since the number of other people who find a piece of evidence to be convincing really doesn't effect how convincing I find that same evidence to be.

As for messengers of god, I've yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that convinces me that any of their claims are true. Every single prophecy that anyone has ever quoted to me has been either so vague that it could mean virtually anything or something that was no different than an accurate prediction. It's not like I've heard a prophecy that I thought 'This is something ONLY a messenger of god would know', but then dismiss it because I'm convinced that there's some kind of conspiracy to create false prophecies in order to fool me. It's simply 100% percent a matter of me not finding the claimed evidence to be sufficient to warrant my belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

If he wanted people to obey him, he shouldn't have given us the free will not to.

God wants us to obey Him, but because we have free will, we can choose to obey or not obey Him.

 

[February-Saturday]

God wants us to obey Him, but because we have free will, we can choose to obey or not obey Him.

I read that, and if he wanted us to obey him, then he shouldn't have given us the free will not to. If he wanted us to have a choice, then why would he punish us for making it? Why give us a choice at all, then?

 

[Trailblazer]

I read that, and if he wanted us to obey him, then he shouldn't have given us the free will not to. If he wanted us to have a choice, then why would he punish us for making it? Why give us a choice at all, then?

I do not believe that God necessarily punishes us, although in some cases God might do that. Humans are rewarded or punished by the choices they make and actions that result from those choices. So we are rewarded or punished according to our own actions. We are rewarded when we do good deeds and we are punished when we do bad or evil deeds. The good or evil we did in this world carries over to the afterlife since we will be exactly what we have become by living in this world.

There are rewards and punishments in both this world and in the afterlife. In fact, the structure of world stability and order has been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment. If we do good deeds in this world we are rewarded and if we do bad or evil deeds we are punished. Likewise, in the afterlife we will be rewarded for what we have done good and punished for what we have done bad deeds. It is not God who will be handing out the rewards and punishments, they will simply accrue to us as the result of our actions here.

People will reap what they sow, so even if they get away with evil acts in this world and do not get punished by the justice system, they will be punished in the afterlife. How God will factor in to that punishment I do not know. Some evil people will not even realize they are evil after they die, so they will simply continue to suffer in their evil state unless someone helps them, although there is no guarantee of that.

We all have free will in this world in order to shape our destiny and prepare our souls for the afterlife, but we will not have free will in the afterlife. Where we wind up will be according to who we were in this world, what we did with our lives. That is why it is so important not to waste our lives. It is not really beliefs that are important, it is actions. The importance of beliefs is that help us to know what good actions are, according to God, who sets those standards.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's OBVIOUS to most people (93% of the world population who are believers) that God exists.

Actually I don't think that's quite accurate. 93% of people may claim to have a belief in something they call a god, but since there are endless definition of what god is you can't really claim that 93% of people believe in the same thing. Now if 93% of people claimed to believe in the exact same god that might carry a bit more weight... but not much, since the number of other people who find a piece of evidence to be convincing really doesn't effect how convincing I find that same evidence to be.

No, obviously they do not all have the same conception of God, because they all have different religions, but I believe that there is only one God and that to believe there is more than one God is highly illogical. How could there be more than one omnipotent/omniscient God? Think of the implications of that.

As for messengers of god, I've yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that convinces me that any of their claims are true.

I think we have to take a logical approach and look at the evidence that might indicate that the alleged Messenger of God was telling the truth about His claim to have heard from God because we can never verify that he heard from God. Only he knew what he heard the Voice of God; we did not hear it so we either choose to believe he heard it or not based upon His credibility or lack thereof. Se we look at his life, his character, his mission, and everything that surrounds his claimed Revelation from God. We have this kind of information for Baha'u'llah because it has all been recorded in the annals of the Faith by those who lived in the 19th century, but we do not have this kind of information for the Messengers of the past such as Jesus, so we would have to base our beliefs solely upon faith that the gospel accounts are true.

Every single prophecy that anyone has ever quoted to me has been either so vague that it could mean virtually anything or something that was no different than an accurate prediction. It's not like I've heard a prophecy that I thought 'This is something ONLY a messenger of god would know', but then dismiss it because I'm convinced that there's some kind of conspiracy to create false prophecies in order to fool me. It's simply 100% percent a matter of me not finding the claimed evidence to be sufficient to warrant my belief.

Do you think that prophecies constitute proof that a Messenger of God is who he claimed to be? If you think that they are, I can give you some Bible prophecies that are specific, ones that could only have been fulfilled only by Baha’u’llah. I think I already sent you one of those prophecies in the past because I recently saw in a Word document with your name on it. I can also give you some predictions Baha’u’llah made that all came to pass, and many of them are very specific.

Much evidence exists, but whether or not it would warrant your belief I do not know. It all depends upon what YOU consider evidence, what is evidence to YOU.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

He believes there is only one answer and he asserts it as if it is a fact. He says: I asserted that under certain hypothetical conditions (the god being omnipotent, omniscient, and desiring that everyone believe in him), there would be no atheists.

This I believe as well. Given those conditions, nothing else is even logically possible.

Once one knows a thing for certain, while it is still possible one might insist that they still don't believe it, they are no longer a non-believer but someone who is simply lying to themself. So while someone who has been given absolute proof of the existence of God, if they continue to insist there is no God, they are not an atheist, they are a liar. Big difference.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, obviously they do not all have the same conception of God, because they all have different religions, but I believe that there is only one God and that to believe there is more than one God is highly illogical. How could there be more than one omnipotent/omniscient God? Think of the implications of that.

I think we have to take a logical approach and look at the evidence that might indicate that the alleged Messenger of God was telling the truth about His claim to have heard from God because we can never verify that he heard from God. Only he knew what he heard the Voice of God; we did not hear it so we either choose to believe he heard it or not based upon His credibility or lack thereof. Se we look at his life, his character, his mission, and everything that surrounds his claimed Revelation from God. We have this kind of information for Baha'u'llah because it has all been recorded in the annals of the Faith by those who lived in the 19th century, but we do not have this kind of information for the Messengers of the past such as Jesus, so we would have to base our beliefs solely upon faith that the gospel accounts are true.


Do you think that prophecies constitute proof that a Messenger of God is who he claimed to be? If you think that they are, I can give you some Bible prophecies that are specific, ones that could only have been fulfilled only by Baha’u’llah. I think I already sent you one of those prophecies in the past because I recently saw in a Word document with your name on it. I can also give you some predictions Baha’u’llah made that all came to pass, and many of them are very specific.

Much evidence exists, but whether or not it would warrant your belief I do not know. It all depends upon what YOU consider evidence, what is evidence to YOU.

No, obviously they do not all have the same conception of God, because they all have different religions, but I believe that there is only one God and that to believe there is more than one God is highly illogical. How could there be more than one omnipotent/omniscient God? Think of the implications of that.

That's pretty much my point. Of the 93% you quoted 1.2 billion of them are Hindus who believe in multiple gods, so clearly they don't share your beliefs. Furthermore, any of that 93% who has a different definition of god than you do also doesn't share your god beliefs either.

I think we have to take a logical approach and look at the evidence that might indicate that the alleged Messenger of God was telling the truth about His claim to have heard from God because we can never verify that he heard from God. Only he knew what he heard the Voice of God; we did not hear it so we either choose to believe he heard it or not based upon His credibility or lack thereof. Se we look at his life, his character, his mission, and everything that surrounds his claimed Revelation from God. We have this kind of information for Baha'u'llah because it has all been recorded in the annals of the Faith by those who lived in the 19th century, but we do not have this kind of information for the Messengers of the past such as Jesus, so we would have to base our beliefs solely upon faith that the gospel accounts are true.

The problem is that I have yet to see any evidence that would prompt me to conclude that any alleged messenger from god was telling the truth. As I recall we've had this discussion before and you sent me what you thought was a prophecy that wasn't vague and could only be interpreted in one way, but after reading it I found it to be vague enough that it could be interpreted in several different ways.

Do you think that prophecies constitute proof that a Messenger of God is who he claimed to be? If you think that they are, I can give you some Bible prophecies that are specific, ones that could only have been fulfilled only by Baha’u’llah. I think I already sent you one of those prophecies in the past because I recently saw in a Word document with your name on it. I can also give you some predictions Baha’u’llah made that all came to pass, and many of them are very specific.

Much evidence exists, but whether or not it would warrant your belief I do not know. It all depends upon what YOU consider evidence, what is evidence to YOU

I suppose if I heard a a precise enough prophecy I might consider it to be evidence for god, but as I said, I've yet to hear one. If you want to send me what you think are the best predictions from your religion, I'm more than willing to listen.

Ultimately if there IS some sort of a creator god with vast powers, I can't imagine that such an exulted being would use such a horribly ineffective method for spreading its message to all of its creations. Relying on what people from previous generations claim god wants is a recipe for disaster and confusion, in my opinion. This would be a god that wants us to put our faith in other fallible human beings instead of putting our faith in god.

 

[Trailblazer]

He believes there is only one answer and he asserts it as if it is a fact. He says: I asserted that under certain hypothetical conditions (the god being omnipotent, omniscient, and desiring that everyone believe in him), there would be no atheists.

This I believe as well. Given those conditions, nothing else is even logically possible.

Since you appear to be very logical, I hope you agree that the absence of those conditions in the OP means that IF there is a God, that God does not want everyone to believe in him, since an omnipotent God could do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists.

 

[February-Saturday]

I do not believe that God necessarily punishes us.

Then, respectfully, I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then, respectfully, I wasn't talking to you.

I guess you mean that you were referring to a certain Christian who believes that.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, because that's not how gifts work.

Who said? You want to tell God what to do with his own gifts?

ETA: But that's not what I was saying, I just wanted to point out that you were contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction, but perhaps more a failure of comprehension on your part.

Trying to justify yourself before God is actually a waste of time.
He knows who we are, what we do, and even how we think. His evaluation of us as prospective citizens of the new world to come, is not just based on what is on the surface. This life is a kind of proving ground...how we finish the course determines either a reward or complete elimination. We all have the same rules and the same opportunities to prove who we are. The judge can’t be bribed or fooled....and he is not interested in excuses.

I don't view people who aren't loyal to God as "unappreciative and ungrateful" or abusing his free will, nor do I see selfishness as a bad thing. I also don't support the death penalty. So you're barking up the wrong tree if you're wanting me to see the God you're describing as just or good, it's never going to happen. My values are the polar opposite of that.

Mmmmm...and you think that makes any difference to the way God judges us? Will it alter the outcome? Are you wanting to dictate your own terms for living?
Well....all I can say is....Good luck with that....

I definitely don't believe that God, even if he existed in the way you portray him, has any "right" over anyone's lives. If he wanted people to obey him, he shouldn't have given us the free will not to.

Would you rather have no choices in life? What is the point of intelligence if we have no way to exercise our free will?

I hope you don’t think that God “owes” anyone, anything.....he is the giver of life, and as Creator, he does not need our approval or permission to do whatever he wishes. If humans don’t like they way he operates, then that is just too bad. That is a bit like an ant standing on a railway track, shaking it’s fist at a locomotive.
Like it or not, he makes the rules. He also enforces them.

The reason why God gave us free will is that it is a quality that comes with being created in his image. It was a gift as well, but gifts, generally are unsolicited and undeserved so, in giving free willed intelligent beings everlasting life (not immortality) he had to have a way to put on the brakes if that gift was abused.

The rules in Eden were not lengthy nor were they complicated....
in fact, they did not create any hardship or deprivation at all. Nothing was unfair or unreasonable.

To go against God’s one negative command, merited the death sentence. If you know the penalty before you break the law, do you have grounds for complaint? Those in authority in any nation have the right and the power to punish. Do they care if you don’t agree with their laws?

God’s justice is perfect and it penalties are not negotiable. You don’t have to agree with the law to experience its penalty.

That is how I understand God and his justice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since you appear to be very logical, I hope you agree that the absence of those conditions in the OP means that IF there is a God, that God does not want everyone to believe in him, since an omnipotent God could do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists.

Oh, yes, that stands logically. Of course, it also entails a number of consequences, that we must then consider. For example: eternal punishment for non-belief (something believed by most Christians and Muslims). That would obviously mean that God is, while omniscient and omnipotent, also capricious and cruel -- deciding that lots and lots of people will suffer eternal punishment through no fault of their own, and through a very egregious fault of His own.

For those who like that sort of God, I suppose that is the sort of God they like. It's not for me, though.

 

[February-Saturday]

Who said? You want to tell God what to do with his own gifts?

Says Oxford and Merriam-Webster when defining the word "gift," and sociologists when describing gift-giving. If that's not what you're referring to when you use the word "gift," then you're misusing the word.

There is no contradiction, but perhaps more a failure of comprehension on your part.

You said that God doesn't condemn anyone. I pointed out that by your own logic, he does, and then in your own words you agreed that God condemns people.

Why is this still a point of contention? You already agreed that you contradicted yourself.

Mmmmm...and you think that makes any difference to the way God judges us? Will it alter the outcome? Are you wanting to dictate your own terms for living?

I don't believe your God exists, much less judges anyone, so no, I don't think my perspective has any bearing on him.

Would you rather have no choices in life? What is the point of intelligence if we have no way to exercise our free will?

I'm not quite sure where either of these questions come from. No, personally, I would not rather have no choices. I don't think intelligence needs a point, either.

I hope you don’t think that God “owes” anyone, anything.....he is the giver of life, and as Creator, he does not need our approval or permission to do whatever he wishes. If humans don’t like they way he operates, then that is just too bad. That is a bit like an ant standing on a railway track, shaking it’s fist at a locomotive.
Like it or not, he makes the rules. He also enforces them.

If I created a bunch of robots that didn't do what I programmed them to do, then that's due to my shoddy design. That's all I'm saying.

That said, clearly he does need and crave my approval, because he wants me to obey him, right? I'm not going to obey him if I don't approve of him or what he's asking.

But, yes, if God existed then he would be subject to a variety of ethical obligations, just like anyone else. He doesn't get a free pass just because he created everything and is really powerful. If anything, because he created the universe he's more responsible for it, and if he's really powerful then he has a deeper obligation to use that power responsibly. In that sense, absolutely I think if your God exists as you're describing him then he owes us a lot.

The reason why God gave us free will is that it is a quality that comes with being created in his image. It was a gift as well, but gifts, generally are unsolicited and undeserved so, in giving free willed intelligent beings everlasting life (not immortality) he had to have a way to put on the brakes if that gift was abused.

It's not a gift if he plans to take it away and demands you use it in a particular way.

If I "gifted" you my Nintendo, but said that I was going to use it most of the time to play Mario Brothers and you could only use the system to play with me as Luigi, who is that really a gift for? You? No, I've given myself a gift.

The rules in Eden were not lengthy nor were they complicated....
in fact, they did not create any hardship or deprivation at all. Nothing was unfair or unreasonable.

Maybe in your opinion. I don't trust your judgment there because we clearly disagree about the justice of authoritarianism and the death penalty. I don't think that really matters though.

Again, we don't normally blame creations for the failures of the creator. If Adam and Eve were going to disobey, which God (being omniscient) would have known, then it was absolutely unfair for him to knowingly make a rule that he knew they would break just to punish them. That's called an abuse of power, not justice.

Do you know the differences between justice and an abusive use of power?

To go against God’s one negative command, merited the death sentence. If you know the penalty before you break the law, do you have grounds for complaint? Those in authority in any nation have the right and the power to punish. Do they care if you don’t agree with their laws?

God’s justice is perfect and it penalties are not negotiable. You don’t have to agree with the law to experience its penalty.

That is how I understand God and his justice.

You asked me whether I think this is fair, and I think this is the furthest from perfect justice that I can possibly imagine. It might even be the most unjust system that I've ever heard of. It's definitely worse than any historical dictatorships, because at least Mussolini couldn't be aware of everyone who rebelled against him and eventually died.

I don't think it's fair. I don't think it was fair when Mussolini did it, either.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, yes, that stands logically. Of course, it also entails a number of consequences, that we must then consider. For example: eternal punishment for non-belief (something believed by most Christians and Muslims). That would obviously mean that God is, while omniscient and omnipotent, also capricious and cruel -- deciding that lots and lots of people will suffer eternal punishment through no fault of their own, and through a very egregious fault of His own.

I do not blame atheists for not believing in God, partly because it is not my place to judge, but also because I fully understand why most atheists do not believe in God. I know that most atheists have tried do believe in God but they do not see the evidence for God's existence. However, there are a numbered few atheists who never even looked at any evidence, all of which comes through religions, and I admit that I consider it their fault that they don't believe in God, because it is impossible to believe if one is completely unwilling to even look at the only evidence God provides.

The Baha'i Faith does not have that kind of punishment for nonbelievers. The cycle of religion that included Christianity and Islam ended with Muhammad who was called the Seal of the Prophets, because He closed off the that cycle of religion. Islam was the last religion where God favored justice over mercy. The Bab and Baha'u'llah ushered in a new religious cycle, called the Cycle of Fulfillment, and in this cycle one's eternal destination is based not only on belief in God but also on good deeds..

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

For those who like that sort of God, I suppose that is the sort of God they like. It's not for me, though.

I would not like God either, if that is what He did, because some of my best friends are atheists. I do not keep company with many believers as I have a predilection towards atheists. Maybe you might have guessed that by all the threads I start, mostly geared towards atheists. I rarely ever start a thread on religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

If Adam and Eve were going to disobey, which God (being omniscient) would have known, then it was absolutely unfair for him to knowingly make a rule that he knew they would break just to punish them.

I do not believe that Adam and Eve were real people or that there was a real Garden of Eden. I believe the story was an allegory that contains spiritual lessons. I do not believe God made a rule He knew would be broken, so I do not believe in original sin.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Faith in life is hope, faith in God is hope in God, atheism is no hope in God, atheism is God murder, thus no there is no reason for atheism.

 

[osgart]

I don't see why God could not remove the hurdle of belief altogether and get on with the real business of dealing with earthly affairs, and human morality.

A hands on approach would signify their being a God. Having to rely on poetic claims of truth leaves a lot to be desired.

A leap of faith is not what humanity needs. We need facts grounded in evidence and reason. There's way too many unclear paths out there that can consume most of a person's lifetime.

If God existed there would be no atheists unless that God was just plain limited in power and scope of responsibility.

 

[Deeje]

Says Oxford and Merriam-Webster when defining the word "gift," and sociologists when describing gift-giving. If that's not what you're referring to when you use the word "gift," then you're misusing the word.

Do you prefer man's definition of a "gift" or God's? He is not constrained by anything humans wish to believe or the definition that they put on words.

The gift of life was a wonderful gift but the fact that it came with reasonable conditions made it no less so.

You said that God doesn't condemn anyone. I pointed out that by your own logic, he does, and then in your own words you agreed that God condemns people.

I believe I said...."Am I admitting that God owns this earth and has a right as Universal Sovereign to make the rules for our tenancy here...yes I am.

Do you have a problem with the one who gave life, taking it back from unappreciative and ungrateful ones who have abused it, and broken his laws in order to gratify their own selfishness?

God is not condemning them without reason.....he gave us life and therefore gave us the rules for living it. Because we are not robots but free willed, the need for some limits was obvious. If those limits set the boundaries for our continued existence, then we either abide by them or forfeit the gift.....its not rocket science surely?"

The 'condemnation' does not come from a bad place any more than laws that carry the death penalty (in any nation) are not made out of spite, to spoil someone's freedom....they are designed to ensure that the offender does not repeat the offense. Jail just festers the problem...death eliminates it. The same person is not brought before the same judge as a repeat offender. If God finds a person guilty then who can offer excuses?

I don't believe your God exists, much less judges anyone, so no, I don't think my perspective has any bearing on him.

Then why are you even arguing the point? If my God does not exist then you have nothing to worry about...do you?

I don't believe your God exists, much less judges anyone, so no, I don't think my perspective has any bearing on him.

I guess your god allows you to do anything you like with no condemnation at all....? What a convenient god he must be. He appears to be the same one who lied to the woman in Eden to gain his recruits by deception. He was a liar at the beginning and has never changed....he was the one who said "you won't die"......but everyone did.....you can trust him if you like.

But, yes, if God existed then he would be subject to a variety of ethical obligations, just like anyone else. He doesn't get a free pass just because he created everything and is really powerful. If anything, because he created the universe he's more responsible for it, and if he's really powerful then he has a deeper obligation to use that power responsibly. In that sense, absolutely I think if your God exists as you're describing him then he owes us a lot.

Whose ethics? As Creator he is the one who determines what is good and what is evil....Only his ethics matter....if we don't agree with them, then too bad. Does shaking your fist at someone who doesn't really care what you think about him or his actions, alter the final outcome for anyone?....as if what you think should alter who He is. I assure you that it won't.

It's not a gift if he plans to take it away and demands you use it in a particular way.

It is a gift.....life itself is something 'bestowed'....we have no choice in that, but life came with conditions.....where do you get the idea that life was, or should be unconditional....? It is people breaking God's laws that make the world a horrible place to live.

If I "gifted" you my Nintendo, but said that I was going to use it most of the time to play Mario Brothers and you could only use the system to play with me as Luigi, who is that really a gift for? You? No, I've given myself a gift.

Nice analogy...how old are you?
If this is how you see things, then it doesn't get more distorted than that. Have you ever actually studied the Bible to get to know this God whom you seem bent on condemning without actually understanding anything about him except what appears on the surface? Eve fell for that one too and look where it get her and all her children....

Again, we don't normally blame creations for the failures of the creator. If Adam and Eve were going to disobey, which God (being omniscient) would have known, then it was absolutely unfair for him to knowingly make a rule that he knew they would break just to punish them. That's called an abuse of power, not justice.

Do you know the differences between justice and an abusive use of power?

I do, but I think you completely misunderstand the purpose of our being here. Did God put us here for no reason? Why do you think we are here?

Abusing power is using it to suppress innocent and legitimate expression of the limited power that we were all granted. Free will is a guarantee that we can exercise our power unselfishly, NOT to take power away from others in order to dominate them and rob them of enjoyment of life. Oppression is the abuse of power....when has God ever oppressed anyone without good reason?

The saying is true..."Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely"...which is why God gave us limited power. Free will, as God intended it, would have enriched our lives, but abusing it turned a blessing into a curse that has affected the entire human race for thousands of years.

Telling humans to obey him for their own good was apparently not enough.....he had to show them where it leads...and here we are. Is the lesson lost? Not on those who understand why its there....and where it leads.

People who display the attitude that you express have a very limited view of who the Creator is, and why he even granted us life in the first place. I wish you knew what I know....

 

[February-Saturday]

I do not believe that Adam and Eve were real people or that there was a real Garden of Eden. I believe the story was an allegory that contains spiritual lessons. I do not believe God made a rule He knew would be broken, so I do not believe in original sin.

I think that's the most common understanding of the story, but what the allegory means differs depending on who you ask.

Personally, I subscribe closer to the esoteric Ophite and Nassene interpretations. Those aren't the only interpretations that exist, but since it's not a literal history I'm not super concerned about other people having different perspectives on the myth.

Personally, I'm not very interested in arguing about the myths themselves, but I am interested in hearing what lessons you take from them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith in life is hope, faith in God is hope in God, atheism is no hope in God, atheism is God murder, thus no there is no reason for atheism.

The reason for atheism is that some people do not see any evidence that God exists. It is not like atheists are disbelieving on purpose. Atheists are not murdering a God they do not believe in.

I do not think Jesus would judge atheists, because they know not what they do.

Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they parted His raiment and cast lots.