Loving God = Eternal Torture?

[sojourner]

you think you know what God had to say to us, but you don't.

The same could be said of you.

what you say disagrees with the scriptures.

Not with theirs, it doesn't.

The scriptures are where you can find the truth about these things, not from other people.

She has investigated the scriptures.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

No, God is not 100% just.

Is God at all just?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm assuming you meant to say "Then" instead of "Than." I know of no Protestants who believe that a person can be released from Prison/Hell after death and remain in Paradise until the Resurrection by making a choice after death. Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. Which Protestants believe that? And which ones believe in "Outer Darkness" as the final destination of a very small number of people after the Final Judgment? I've always thought that "Outer Darkness" was a concept unique to Mormonism.

Sorry, yes, then instead of than. I believe in an Outer Darkness because it is a scriptural term. I don't believe in a second chance after death as it is appointed to men to die and then be judged, but I don't believe in the devil/pitchfork/medieval Roman Catholic Hell, either. Luke 16 tells us a person in Hell is thirsty, in darkness, but able to have a conversation with others.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is God at all just?

Oh, He is 100% just! But He is also 100% merciful.

You see, unlike other religions I've studied, where God seems to be capricious, merciful here, judging and vengeful there, in the cross:

We deserve Hell but are granted Heaven.

We are offered Heaven but Jesus has to pay a hellish price.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry, yes, then instead of than. I believe in an Outer Darkness because it is a scriptural term. I don't believe in a second chance after death as it is appointed to men to die and then be judged, but I don't believe in the devil/pitchfork/medieval Roman Catholic Hell, either. Luke 16 tells us a person in Hell is thirsty, in darkness, but able to have a conversation with others.

I'm curious as to what you believe about the fate of the millions of souls who have lived on earth without ever having even heard of Jesus Christ. Does God just turn a blind eye to the fact that they never accepted Jesus Christ, or are they just consigned to an eternity in Hell due to the fact that they happened to be born at the wrong time and in the wrong place? If you don't believe that God would give everyone the opportunity to at least hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, then apparently you don't believe in a "first chance" either. By the way, I, too, believe in a judgment after death. It is by this judgment that people find themselves either in Paradise or in Prison/Hell. This judgment is not the same thing as the "Final Judgment," though. That judgment does not come immediately after death.

 

[truthofscripture]

Is God at all just?

Jehovah God most certainly is 100% just, fair, and loving. Everything He does is done for love, is fair, and is just..

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Oh, He is 100% just! But He is also 100% merciful.

How does that work? The two would appear to be mutually exclusive.

Doesn't mercy involve the suspension of justice? If God were even 1% merciful, how can he be 100% just?

We deserve Hell

Then wouldn't a 100% just God send us all to hell"

but are granted Heaven.

How is that 100% just?

We are offered Heaven but Jesus has to pay a hellish price.

If one man is required to suffer for the sins of all humanity, how is that 100% just?

 

[truthofscripture]

Mercy and justice are both qualities of Jehovah God. It is your concept of them that matches the world at large, not Jehovah God. He is merciful, just, loving, powerful. All things are possible through God the Almighty.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Oh, He is 100% just! But He is also 100% merciful.
You see, unlike other religions I've studied, where God seems to be capricious, merciful here, judging and vengeful there, in the cross:
We deserve Hell but are granted Heaven.
We are offered Heaven but Jesus has to pay a hellish price.

Did Jesus deserve hell ? ______ Acts 2:27, and why was Jesus resurrected by God out of hell and granted heaven?
Was King David granted heaven ? _____ Acts 2:34
Since all who died before Jesus - John 3:13 - are Not granted heaven, what are they granted ?_________
Did the faithful dead of Hebrews chapter 11 go anywhere since they did Not see the fulfillment of God's promise ?______ Hebrews 11 vs 13,39
At Matthew 5:5 didn't Jesus stress and teach the meek would inherit, Not heaven, but inherit the earth ? ______-Psalm 37 vs 11,29
So, by Jesus saying ' everlasting life ' does Not necessarily mean heaven for all - Psalm 115:16 - but for most living forever on earth.

 

[truthofscripture]

Did Jesus deserve hell ? ______ Acts 2:27, and why was Jesus resurrected by God out of hell and granted heaven?
Was King David granted heaven ? _____ Acts 2:34
Since all who died before Jesus - John 3:13 - are Not granted heaven, what are they granted ?_________
Did the faithful dead of Hebrews chapter 11 go anywhere since they did Not see the fulfillment of God's promise ?______ Hebrews 11 vs 13,39
At Matthew 5:5 didn't Jesus stress and teach the meek would inherit, Not heaven, but inherit the earth ? ______-Psalm 37 vs 11,29
So, by Jesus saying ' everlasting life ' does Not necessarily mean heaven for all - Psalm 115:16 - but for most living forever on earth.

In the Bible, the word hell means grave, not some place of torment. That belief is pagan, and was adopted by religions CLAIMING to be Christian, although they aren't.
They will probably be resurrected after armageddon.
No one except the holy spirit annointed 144,000 ever go to heaven. Since we don't have an immortal soul and flesh cannot go to heaven, what did you expect? the false teachings of false religions? Not hardly.
No, there is no heaven for all. The scriptures promise that those who do "the entire will of God, always", will be resurrected to a paradise Earth. Those who are part of false religion will be destroyed as a judgement and will not be resurrected. \
These are the truths that the scriptures teach, as opposed to what religions teach.
Religions do NOT teach the truth. None of them. If you want truth, it can be found in the scriptures, but only in an ACCURATE translation of them. Not King James or any Bible like it.

 

[sojourner]

If you want truth, it can be found in the scriptures, but only in an ACCURATE translation of them. Not King James or any Bible like it.

So, which translation is ACCURATE?? You've never told us!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In the Bible, the word hell means grave, not some place of torment. That belief is pagan, and was adopted by religions CLAIMING to be Christian, although they aren't.
They will probably be resurrected after armageddon.
No one except the holy spirit annointed 144,000 ever go to heaven. Since we don't have an immortal soul and flesh cannot go to heaven, what did you expect? the false teachings of false religions? Not hardly.
No, there is no heaven for all. The scriptures promise that those who do "the entire will of God, always", will be resurrected to a paradise Earth. Those who are part of false religion will be destroyed as a judgement and will not be resurrected. \
These are the truths that the scriptures teach, as opposed to what religions teach.
Religions do NOT teach the truth. None of them. If you want truth, it can be found in the scriptures, but only in an ACCURATE translation of them. Not King James or any Bible like it.

Since you have posted " Religion: none ", then are you saying you will be destroyed ?______

Please keep in mind the KJV Bible dates back over 400 years ago and it can be compared for accuracy with the ancient manuscripts.
There is a BIG difference between recognizing mistakes that crept into copies of Bible text and dismissing KJV as a whole.
Plus, it was false clergy who twisted what was translated into English 400+ years ago such as the English word: hell.
It was clergy who used fire as a scare tactics to control the flock, rather than teach the truth about the word hell meaning just the grave, and hellfire (from the word Gehenna ) as meaning just destruction.

As Noah Webster wrote in the preface of his Bible that ' Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original language, they do Not present to the reader the Word of God.'

KJV prints what Jesus taught at Matthew 5:5 - in reference to Psalm 37 vs 11,29 that the meek would inherit the earth forever.
So, although KJV copyists took the liberty to add on verses after Mark 16:8, still as a whole KJV can be used to show scriptural truth.
Old KJV Bibles accurately translates God's spirit as the neuter ' it' and ' itself ' at Numbers 11 vs 17,25 and Romans 8 vs 16,26
Whereas some newer translations took the liberty to wrongly change the neuter words it and itself to him and himself.
I agree accuracy in translation is religious truth, and paraphrased versions are far off, but a person with a sound open mind can generally use their Bible translation to be taught the religious truth of God's Word by learning the meaning of biblical words.

 

[sojourner]

Since you have posted " Religion: none ", then are you saying you will be destroyed ?______

Please keep in mind the KJV Bible dates back over 400 years ago and it can be compared for accuracy with the ancient manuscripts.
There is a BIG difference between recognizing mistakes that crept into copies of Bible text and dismissing KJV as a whole.
Plus, it was false clergy who twisted what was translated into English 400+ years ago such as the English word: hell.
It was clergy who used fire as a scare tactics to control the flock, rather than teach the truth about the word hell meaning just the grave, and hellfire (from the word Gehenna ) as meaning just destruction.

As Noah Webster wrote in the preface of his Bible that ' Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original language, they do Not present to the reader the Word of God.'

KJV prints what Jesus taught at Matthew 5:5 - in reference to Psalm 37 vs 11,29 that the meek would inherit the earth forever.
So, although KJV copyists took the liberty to add on verses after Mark 16:8, still as a whole KJV can be used to show scriptural truth.
Old KJV Bibles accurately translates God's spirit as the neuter ' it' and ' itself ' at Numbers 11 vs 17,25 and Romans 8 vs 16,26
Whereas some newer translations took the liberty to wrongly change the neuter words it and itself to him and himself.
I agree accuracy in translation is religious truth, and paraphrased versions are far off, but a person with a sound open mind can generally use their Bible translation to be taught the religious truth of God's Word by learning the meaning of biblical words.

Puh-leeze

 

[atpollard]

How does that work? The two would appear to be mutually exclusive.

Doesn't mercy involve the suspension of justice? If God were even 1% merciful, how can he be 100% just?

Then wouldn't a 100% just God send us all to hell"

How is that 100% just?

If one man is required to suffer for the sins of all humanity, how is that 100% just?

You have hit the nail right on the head with respect to the Gospel and the Deity of Christ.
100% Just requires that 'the wages of sin are death' be paid to the last penny.
My sins (to avoid making this seem like an attack, but it applies to everyone else's sin as well) require a just God to sentence me to death.

If Jesus was a sinless man, then he might be willing and able to trade his life for my life ... to take the death sentence in my place.
If God forced the perfect human Jesus to die in my place, that would be 100% unjust.
However, the perfect human Jesus might reasonably have the right to take my place without being even a little unjust.
I would get 100% mercy from Jesus and God would get his 100% justice.
Perfect human Jesus gets royally shafted, but that might potentially be his right.
If nobody forced him into it, and he never changed his mind ... then a perfect man might have a right to die in my place.

In this imaginary exchange between perfect human Jesus, sinful Arthur and 100% just God ... I end up sitting pretty, and you end up screwed.
See, you have a debt of sin that must be paid too.
Unfortunately, there was only one perfect man, so as much as God might want to be 100% mercifull, that 100% just means that somebody must pay the wages of your sin, and only you are left to pay that debt.

Now just to mix things up a bit, let's assume that Jesus was still perfect, but he was more than human ... Let's call him perfect angel Jesus and let's assume that perfect angel Jesus has as much right to willingly die for another as perfect human Jesus did.
So how many human lives is an angel's life worth?
I have no idea.
Just for this discussion, let's say that each perfect angel Jesus is worth 100 human lives.
So now 100 sinful humans get to experience 100% mercy, God remains 100% just and the rest of humanity pay's their own sin debt.
Better, but that still sucks.

Now let's try one more 'what if'.
Suppose that God wanted to pay the debt himself.
Does God have the right to pay someone's sin debt?
Why not.
So what if perfect God-man Jesus decided to die to pay a human sin debt.
With the debt paid, God can remain 100% just.
With your and my debt paid, we get to see the 100% mercy of God.
The only question remaining is how much the life of one perfect God-man is worth in human lives.

As the creator of everything, the life of one creator is worth more than all of his creation.
Jesus Christ, the God-man, has the capability to pay all sin debt.
Debt paid, God stays 100% just.
Forgiveness available to all, God stays 100% mercifull.
Above all that, God gets to show off his 'perfect love' and by raising himself from the dead, God gets to display 100% awesome.

How is that for a plan?
Go God!

 

[truthofscripture]

Since you have posted " Religion: none ", then are you saying you will be destroyed ?______

Please keep in mind the KJV Bible dates back over 400 years ago and it can be compared for accuracy with the ancient manuscripts.
There is a BIG difference between recognizing mistakes that crept into copies of Bible text and dismissing KJV as a whole.
Plus, it was false clergy who twisted what was translated into English 400+ years ago such as the English word: hell.
It was clergy who used fire as a scare tactics to control the flock, rather than teach the truth about the word hell meaning just the grave, and hellfire (from the word Gehenna ) as meaning just destruction.

As Noah Webster wrote in the preface of his Bible that ' Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original language, they do Not present to the reader the Word of God.'

KJV prints what Jesus taught at Matthew 5:5 - in reference to Psalm 37 vs 11,29 that the meek would inherit the earth forever.
So, although KJV copyists took the liberty to add on verses after Mark 16:8, still as a whole KJV can be used to show scriptural truth.
Old KJV Bibles accurately translates God's spirit as the neuter ' it' and ' itself ' at Numbers 11 vs 17,25 and Romans 8 vs 16,26
Whereas some newer translations took the liberty to wrongly change the neuter words it and itself to him and himself.
I agree accuracy in translation is religious truth, and paraphrased versions are far off, but a person with a sound open mind can generally use their Bible translation to be taught the religious truth of God's Word by learning the meaning of biblical words.

No. I am part of God's Earthly organization. Part of the original Christian Congregation that Jesus began.
And the King James is a sure fire way to be misinformed and misled.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

100% Just requires that 'the wages of sin are death' be paid to the last penny.

Just not by the actual sinner. God just wants his pound of flesh, right? He doesn't care who gets it comes from.

My sins (to avoid making this seem like an attack, but it applies to everyone else's sin as well) require a just God to sentence me to death.

Actually, wasn't Adam and Eve's "sin" enough to screw the entire human race? According to Christian doctrine, I mean. So it doesn't really matter if any of us have sinned or not. According to Christianity, we're damaged good straight out of the box, right?

If Jesus was a sinless man, then he might be willing and able to trade his life for my life ...

For the weekend. That's all.

... to take the death sentence in my place.

And how is that just? You still haven't explained how that is just.

If God forced the perfect human Jesus to die in my place, that would be 100% unjust.

But a willing volunteer is? How utterly twisted. Do you understand how sick that sounds?

However, the perfect human Jesus might reasonably have the right to take my place without being even a little unjust.

Again: How does that qualify as "just?"

I would get 100% mercy from Jesus and God would get his 100% justice.

So you're dealing with two entities ... or one?

Perfect human Jesus gets royally shafted, but that might potentially be his right.

Royally shafted = inconvenienced for a few days.

If you take one episode of crucifixion and divide that by the entire population of the human race throughout all time ... what does that work out to? Nothing a few Advil wouldn't cover, I'd imagine.

If nobody forced him into it, and he never changed his mind ... then a perfect man might have a right to die in my place.

How does that absolve you of anything? It's nothing more than scapegoating. Plus, it was all planned from the beginning, right? So it was unavoidable, correct?

Or was it?

In this imaginary exchange between perfect human Jesus, sinful Arthur and 100% just God ... I end up sitting pretty, and you end up screwed.
See, you have a debt of sin that must be paid too.

This is assuming that your particular theology is correct, of course.

And unlike you, if it comes to it ... I'm willing to pay my debts myself rather than look to some sort of cosmic enabler.

Unfortunately, there was only one perfect man, so as much as God might want to be 100% mercifull, that 100% just means that somebody must pay the wages of your sin, and only you are left to pay that debt.

Unless we could find a willing patsy to take the fall, of course.

Now just to mix things up a bit, let's assume that Jesus was still perfect, but he was more than human ... Let's call him perfect angel Je--

Sorry. My patience to accommodate your cosmic flights of fancy is wearing thin.

So how many human lives is an angel's life worth?
I have no idea.

Me either. I left my Atonement-By-Proxy slide rule at the office.

Just for this discussion, let's say that each perfect angel Jesus is worth 100 human lives.
So now 100 sinful humans get to experience 100% mercy, God remains 100% just and the rest of humanity pay's their own sin debt.
Better, but that still sucks.

Again, Party A volunteering to pay the debt of Party B doesn't feel at all just. It feels doubly unjust.

And your shtick is getting tedious.

Now let's try one more 'what if'.
Suppose that God wanted to pay the debt himself.
Does God have the right to pay someone's sin debt?
Why not.
So what if perfect God-man Jesus decided to die to pay a human sin debt.
With the debt paid, God can remain 100% just.
With your and my debt paid, we get to see the 100% mercy of God.
The only question remaining is how much the life of one perfect God-man is worth in human lives.

As the creator of everything, the life of one creator is worth more than all of his creation.
Jesus Christ, the God-man, has the capability to pay all sin debt.
Debt paid, God stays 100% just.
Forgiveness available to all, God stays 100% mercifull.
Above all that, God gets to show off his 'perfect love' and by raising himself from the dead, God gets to display 100% awesome.

I'm sorry. Your rationalizations are getting too nauseating to contemplate.

How is that for a plan?

Sounds exactly like the sort of thing a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age pastoralists would scheme up. It's a huge, barter-economy version of Let's make A Deal.

Go God!

Why not simply forgive? Doesn't it strike you as rather odd that an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient being can't figure out how to simply forgive?

 

[truthofscripture]

Just not by the actual sinner. God just wants his pound of flesh, right? He doesn't care who gets it comes from.



Actually, wasn't Adam and Eve's "sin" enough to screw the entire human race? According to Christian doctrine, I mean. So it doesn't really matter if any of us have sinned or not. According to Christianity, we're damaged good straight out of the box, right?



For the weekend. That's all.



And how is that just? You still haven't explained how that is just.



But a willing volunteer is? How utterly twisted. Do you understand how sick that sounds?



Again: How does that qualify as "just?"



So you're dealing with two entities ... or one?



Royally shafted = inconvenienced for a few days.

If you take one episode of crucifixion and divide that by the entire population of the human race throughout all time ... what does that work out to? Nothing a few Advil wouldn't cover, I'd imagine.



How does that absolve you of anything? It's nothing more than scapegoating. Plus, it was all planned from the beginning, right? So it was unavoidable, correct?

Or was it?



This is assuming that your particular theology is correct, of course.

And unlike you, if it comes to it ... I'm willing to pay my debts myself rather than look to some sort of cosmic enabler.



Unless we could find a willing patsy to take the fall, of course.



Sorry. My patience to accommodate your cosmic flights of fancy is wearing thin.



Me either. I left my Atonement-By-Proxy slide rule at the office.



Again, Party A volunteering to pay the debt of Party B doesn't feel at all just. It feels doubly unjust.

And your shtick is getting tedious.



I'm sorry. Your rationalizations are getting too nauseating to contemplate.



Sounds exactly like the sort of thing a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age pastoralists would scheme up. It's a huge, barter-economy version of Let's make A Deal.



Why not simply forgive? Doesn't it strike you as rather odd that an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient being can't figure out how to simply forgive?

It seems to me that by your posts, you have no understanding whatsoever of who God is, and who His son, Jesus, is, and what they've done for us. It is to one's benefit to study and understand these things. It is apparent that the reason for the way God handled the sin of Adam escapes you. We all age, sicken, and die because we inherited it from Adam, as a result of his disobedience. God came up with a plan to reverse that, with His son's help. One thing to consider is that God is just, loving, wise, and powerful. With NO exceptions. Not understanding the individual circimstances about which you speak can lead you to believe what you do. If one were to completely understand the why and the how of the situations involved, that one will understand the loving kindness exhibited by God and His son in our behalf. It takes a good bit of study, not just reading, to understand. Religions cannot and will not teach these things. It goes against their grain. It would cause them to be abandoned by their members.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It seems to me that by your posts, you have no understanding whatsoever of who God is, and who His son, Jesus, is, and what they've done for us.

It appears that an omniscient God created a faulty product and then blamed his creations for behaving exactly as he'd designed them to behave.

It is to one's benefit to study and understand these things.

That's an arguable assertion. The more I study religion, the more reprehensible it appears.

It is apparent that the reason for the way God handled the sin of Adam escapes you. We all age, sicken, and die because we inherited it from Adam, as a result of his disobedience.

Adam and Eve didn't know any better. They ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and only after they knew better were they penalized by God. Makes perfect sense.

God came up with a plan to reverse that, with His son's help.

Actually, if God knows all things then he knew beforehand how things would work out. Correct?

One thing to consider is that God is just, loving, wise, and powerful. With NO exceptions.

Well ... some Christians insist that he cannot divine the results of human free will. So under that sort of theology, God is at least an iota short of total omniscience.

Not understanding the individual circimstances about which you speak can lead you to believe what you do.

I take that to mean "Not viewing this twaddle through God-colored glasses can lead you to not believe as we do."

If one were to completely understand the why and the how of the situations involved, that one will understand the loving kindness exhibited by God and His son in our behalf. It takes a good bit of study, not just reading, to understand. Religions cannot and will not teach these things. It goes against their grain. It would cause them to be abandoned by their members.

Which leads me to conclude that they deserve to be abandoned. The sooner, the better.

 

[truthofscripture]

It appears that an omniscient God created a faulty product and then blamed his creations for behaving exactly as he'd designed them to behave.
HE DESIGNED NO FAULTY PRODUCT. THEY WERE PERFECT. THEY DID HAVE FREE WILL. YOUR ASSERTION WOULD NECESSITATE NO FREE WILL.


That's an arguable assertion. The more I study religion, the more reprehensible it appears.
I DID NOT SAY TO STUDY RELIGION, WHICH THE SCRIPTURES SAY ARE ALL FALSE. I SAID TO STUDY AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF THE WORD OF GOD. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND OPPOSING THINGS.


Adam and Eve didn't know any better. They ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and only after they knew better were they penalized by God. Makes perfect sense.
ADAM AND EVE DID KNOW BETTER. THEY WERE TOLD AS MUCH WHEN THEY WERE CREATED.


Actually, if God knows all things then he knew beforehand how things would work out. Correct?
MAY BE SO. I CANNOT ASK HIM.


Well ... some Christians insist that he cannot divine the results of human free will. So under that sort of theology, God is at least an iota short of total omniscience.

RELIGIONS CLAIMING TO BE CHRISTIAN ARE NOT. THEY ARE CHRISTENDOM. CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION, IT IS, AS JESUS TERMED IT, "THE ONE TRUE FAITH". GOD IS THE CREATER OF ALL AND EVERYTHING AND IS THE SOVEREIGN RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, CAPABLE OF ALL THINGS.

I take that to mean "Not viewing this twaddle through God-colored glasses can lead you to not believe as we do."
TAKE IT ANY WAY YOU WANT. BUT KNOWING THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER WOULD NECESSARILY CHANGE YOUR BELIEFS, SINCE YOU AREN'T AWARE OF THOSE TRUTHS.


Which leads me to conclude that they deserve to be abandoned. The sooner, the better.

LET'S HYPOTHETICALLY SAY YOU WERE HEAD OF A LARGE CORPORATION THAT WAS CONTEMPLATING MAKING A BUSINESS DECISION INVOLVING A HUGE SUM OF MONEY. WOULD YOU TAKE THE WORD OF OTHERS, HERESAY IN OTHER WORDS, ON THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION, OR WOULD YOU SEEK TO GAIN ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL ASPECTS OF THAT DECISION, PRIOR TO MAKING IT? YOU CAN SURELY SEE, SINCE YOU ARE AN INTELLIGENT AND THOUGHTFUL PERSON, THE DANGERS OF TAKING OTHER'S WORD FOR IT, AND SEE THE BENEFIT OF GAINING ACCURATE INFORMATION. THE ACCURATE INFORMATION WITH REGARDS GOD IS THE BIBLE, THE HERESAY IS RELIGION AND FALSE TRANSLATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

HE DESIGNED NO FAULTY PRODUCT. THEY WERE PERFECT.

If they were perfect, how could they have been misled by a talking snake?

THEY DID HAVE FREE WILL. YOUR ASSERTION WOULD NECESSITATE NO FREE WILL.

So you're asserting that they had free will, but they did not know the difference between good and evil, correct?

I DID NOT SAY TO STUDY RELIGION, WHICH THE SCRIPTURES SAY ARE ALL FALSE.

Well … aside from one, right?

I SAID TO STUDY AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF THE WORD OF GOD. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND OPPOSING THINGS.

An accurate translation? Out of the multitude that are available?
What if they're all wrong?

ADAM AND EVE DID KNOW BETTER. THEY WERE TOLD AS MUCH WHEN THEY WERE CREATED.

What good does it do to issue proclamations to subjects that are ignorant of good and evil? Being commanded to not do X is the same as knowing that X is wrong?
This is where Christians lose me on the whole “We have objective morality and you don't” front. Divine commands hardly seem like objective morality.

MAY BE SO. I CANNOT ASK HIM.

Is this the correct time to urge you to pray over the matter?

CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION, IT IS, AS JESUS TERMED IT, "THE ONE TRUE FAITH".

The one true faith is not a religion? OK. Got it. We'll be revoking your tax-exempt status ASAP.

GOD IS THE CREATER OF ALL AND EVERYTHING AND IS THE SOVEREIGN RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, CAPABLE OF ALL THINGS.

So you claim.