Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[1robin]

No, the two are distinct. I think the god of the bible is a angry child who I could not follow even if I did believe he exist. I don't for other reasons. But my path to where I am started with the realization that the god of the bible is not loving in the least.

Let me quote you again, it seems your back peddling a bit. You said:

But the reality is that a god who would knowingly create a world full of cancer and suffering beyond our control... isn't worthy of my respect.

However I mischaracterized what you said a little bit. You aren't saying that the existence of suffering means there must not be a God. Your saying that the level of suffering that we see around us make any God that may exist unworthy of respect. My bad. Regardless, by what objective criteria can you show that a God that exists with a planet as screwed up as this one is unworthy of respect?

No, they endured a lifetime of abuse for disobeying those they fought against.

You missed my point. Lets say that both the claims made by Gandhi's followers and Christ's apostles were both equally true that would basically mean than the British should get out of India in Gandhi's case, but that Christ had conquered death it's self so that we could exist in eternal contentment after death. I hope you can now easily see the magnitude of the difference between what you tried to equate.

BTW Gandhi was noble yet wrong. The British left India and India instantly descended into civil war.

How is that relevant to anything? So the bible would have us believe that the god who created a world of horror felt bad about it, after millenia of allowing the non jewish to go to hell, so he sent his kid down to die (another evil notion if I ever heard one).

There is no verse nor combination of verses that are properly represented by anything you said above.

What actually happened was that if true love could exist, then freewill must exist, if freewill exists then it must be able to be used incorrectly, if we use out wills incorrectly suffering occurs, suffering is a sign that we are sinful. Before God created anything he knew his creation would go astray, and Christ said he would willing pay the full price to redeem a fallen creation.

The bible should read, "God, being so arrogant as to not accept the smallest disagreement, ordered thousands of years of misery thanks to the inevitable failure of 2 people.

You should leave the bible as it is, and try to condemn it on its actual merits. Not invent a nonsensical non-bible, condemn it, then claim a victory over the bible by proxy. Classic straw man.

Funny stuff.

The proper use of a library card would have saved you quite a bit of time in condemning what you do not seem to understand.

That's a silly statement through and through. There is no evidence that he was god. So this notion that one has no choice is absurd. Jesus, or whoever ghost wrote for him, said some incredibly insightful things. He also ignored a lot of injustice and evil in the world.

If you want to counter a scholar with Lewis's credentials then do so on its actual merits, instead of doing something as ridiculous as claiming what he said can be written off because you label it silly.

According to the same textual revelation by which we come to know of Christ to begin with:

1. Christ existed before the universe was created.
2. He forgave sin in his own name.
3. He raised the dead in his own name.
4. All creation was created through and for him.
5. There is no evidence he ever committed a single immoral act.
6. He paid for the sins of the entire human race.
7. He did miracles by his own power.
8. Demons trebled at his presence.
9. He said he and the father are one.
10. I could continue this list for hours but must stop somewhere.

Also BTW I did not make an argument that Jesus was God. My argument was that whatever he was, simply a moral teacher or good man isn't even among the possibilities.

But most of my issue with the god of the bible is based in the old testament where god is a maniacal monster.

Ok, this is the only point you have made so far that has any teeth. I do not believe it is ultimately true but it is at least a rational conclusion. So I would suggest that you drop every other claim you have made (most are absurd misrepresentations about God and the bible) and concentrate on this own alone. It is worthy of debate, the rest was white noise.

Do you agree?

 

[Underhill]

Let me quote you again, it seems your back peddling a bit. You said:



However I mischaracterized what you said a little bit. You aren't saying that the existence of suffering means there must not be a God. Your saying that the level of suffering that we see around us make any God that may exist unworthy of respect. My bad. Regardless, by what objective criteria can you show that a God that exists with a planet as screwed up as this one is unworthy of respect?

Seriously? I mean your question answers itself. The criteria is the planet being as screwed up as it is.

You missed my point. Lets say that both the claims made by Gandhi's followers and Christ's apostles were both equally true that would basically mean than the British should get out of India in Gandhi's case, but that Christ had conquered death it's self so that we could exist in eternal contentment after death. I hope you can now easily see the magnitude of the difference between what you tried to equate.

I don't. You artificially make one more important than the other because of the importance you give the next life. The vast majority of the world operates based upon the impact on this life.

BTW Gandhi was noble yet wrong. The British left India and India instantly descended into civil war.

How does that make him wrong? His goals were solid. The rest of his country let him down.

There is no verse nor combination of verses that are properly represented by anything you said above.

What actually happened was that if true love could exist, then freewill must exist, if freewill exists then it must be able to be used incorrectly, if we use out wills incorrectly suffering occurs, suffering is a sign that we are sinful. Before God created anything he knew his creation would go astray, and Christ said he would willing pay the full price to redeem a fallen creation.

It's all in perspective. You believe god loves you and thus cannot see it. But the notion that all suffering is the result of misbehavior simply ignores reality. Cancer is not the result of behavior in most cases. Tumors, birth defects and any number of other medical conditions occurs naturally and randomly. People often die in accidents where they did no wrong. Kids who haven't even reached an age of consent or understanding are in cancer wards around the world.

And you are right. The 'loving' creator made this world (according to the bible) knowing all of this would be the result. He then set a trap, knowing adam and eve would fail, and doomed their ancestors to eternal punishment because they ate an apple. As the bible says, "By their works you shall know them." By his works, laid out clearly in the bible, I know what god is and I don't like it much.

You should leave the bible as it is, and try to condemn it on its actual merits. Not invent a nonsensical non-bible, condemn it, then claim a victory over the bible by proxy. Classic straw man.

No it isn't as everything I have said is in the book. God is omniscient. It's in there. He created man and woman knowing they would sin. Chose the punishment. Watched them sin and then condemned his creation. It's all in the bible. I am not changing what the book says, just framing it differently.

The proper use of a library card would have saved you quite a bit of time in condemning what you do not seem to understand.

I am a voracious reader and have been since I was a child. Read thousands of books. Tested at the college level by the time I was 12. So please stop with the petty insults just because you don't like what I am saying.

If you want to counter a scholar with Lewis's credentials then do so on its actual merits, instead of doing something as ridiculous as claiming what he said can be written off because you label it silly.

Of course it's silly.

According to the same textual revelation by which we come to know of Christ to begin with:

1. Christ existed before the universe was created.

According to the bible yes.

2. He forgave sin in his own name.

So he writes the rules, knowing they would be broken, then forgives them. It would be hard to imagine my gratitude over such an act of kindness (that is sarcasm).

3. He raised the dead in his own name.

So he pulls these people out of heaven. Good on him.

4. All creation was created through and for him.

That bit I believe (if the bible is true.) Clearly he didn't create it for us.

5. There is no evidence he ever committed a single immoral act.

Nonsense. I've named a half dozen places where he ordered immoral acts. Creation itself could be seen as immoral. But if you need other examples, ordering the slaughter of innocent women and children would come near the top of anyone's list of the most detestable acts imaginable.

6. He paid for the sins of the entire human race.

Sins against whom?

7. He did miracles by his own power.

Small inconsequential miracles. If I had the power of god behind me, I think I could find something better to do than help a few sick people or feed people that show up to a rally. How about curing disease? Free all slaves?

8. Demons trebled at his presence.

You mean the angels that got sick of his crap.

9. He said he and the father are one.

So the single best figure in the book ties himself to the evil ******* in the old testament? Not exactly a consolation.

10. I could continue this list for hours but must stop somewhere.

I agree.

Also BTW I did not make an argument that Jesus was God. My argument was that whatever he was, simply a moral teacher or good man isn't even among the possibilities.

Ok, this is the only point you have made so far that has any teeth. I do not believe it is ultimately true but it is at least a rational conclusion. So I would suggest that you drop every other claim you have made (most are absurd misrepresentations about God and the bible) and concentrate on this own alone. It is worthy of debate, the rest was white noise.

Do you agree?

Of course not. The last object on your own list ties Jesus to the old testament god. So how can you claim one is a great figure who is 'more than a teacher' while the other is probably a maniacal monster?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, then IYHO the Bible is utterly wrong.



I told you. I am not a moral realist. Nothing is objectively/inherently right or wrong.

Ciao

- viole

It is simple. Atheists are typically moral realists because they thus avoid "sin", "evil", "conscience" and . . . judgment.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because I was a believer through and through and was convinced people were going to hell. Nobody is perfect.

That's not why I witness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"



If god came along tomorrow and talked to me, I would react exactly the same way. If he is real he has some serious crimes to answer for. We could start with Genocide and go from there.



Job's trials were the direct result, according to the bible, of god and the devil getting in an argument. It was not just "exceptional trials". It was a targeted attack on a man god described as perfect and upright.



I had the same encounter. The first time as a result of terror as a child. Later as a result of raw emotion tapped by a good preacher.

If all you have are trivial concerns, then you need to do some soul searching. A god who would turn people to pillars of salt for looking back at their life long home? A god who orders a man to kill his son? A god who orders every man, women and child (even the goats, wth did goats ever do to anyone?) slain by his chosen people? A god who orders the first born of every household of Egypt slain because one man was stubborn? This is not a good god. He's evil.

You will have a chance to meet God and to address your mutual concerns.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have never been in a thread that remained specifically on the OP. BTW it does not appear that the OP was specifically about rape, to me anyway. It appeared to me to be about the ontology of morality concerning God's existence.

The classic argument is that objective moral values and duties can only exist if God exists.

Objective moral values and duties do exist (including prohibitions against rape, murder, being a drunkard, etc....).

Therefore God exists.

Or

If you do not believe God exists.

Therefore objective moral values and duties can't possibly exist.


I think you were in the objective moral values do exist - camp, so we must agree that God exists.

Arguments about "if" "then" moral ontology are actually simplistic and absolute, which is probably why the discussion drifted away at some point.

I didn't use the word "God" in the OP.

Hint: It is recommend to use simplistic, absolute discussions when talking to atheists. They LOVE to go far afield when it is simple to see they are subjective regarding truth, reality, morality, etc. and need to start, as we all do, on a firm foundation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Correct.

I've never met someone that blithely unaware. But I have personally witnessed to many people, some of whom turned out to be believers, atheists and all manner in between, and all of them admitted that can be at times selfish, self-centered, all about themselves.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I only ask you to define two terms in that post which you're quoting.

You haven't answer any of my questions in that post which you're quoting.

You haven't provide any evidence to support any of your claims which i have mention in my post which you're quoting.


Yes, I think rape is always wrong.

If rape is always wrong, how can this be? Wouldn't that be a moral absolute?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Going to repost since it was not sufficiently answered.

Atheists such as myself say that moral absolutes don't exist because a moral absolute would mean universal condemnation of 'absolute morally wrong' behavior, and that just doesn't exist. The fact that there are people who do not view rape as morally incorrect behavior means it's not absolute in the universal sense.

Does the lack of moral absolutes mean morality is therefore arbitrary? Of course not. Atheists have a number of meta-ethical systems which describe their criteria for judging moral behavior. Such as utilitarian consequentialism, which analyzes the consequence of actions to determine help v harm.
[Incidentally because you didn't specify human on human rape, I don't consider non-human animals raping eachother or even non-human animals raping humans to be morally wrong behavior for them, as they don't have the intellectual framework to analyze the consequences of their actions and are thus, blameless, only when considering the harm rape does to adult humans by other adult humans do we determine moral fault.]
This is in contrast to dogmatism and divine command theory which only holds that what you're told is moral authority. Which I object to for a number of reasons:

First and foremost, I don't believe god(s) exist, which means the moral instruction Christians receive is just as human based as mine and therefore not divine. But more importantly,
I'm not an authoritarian, I don't believe command, instruction or law, divine or otherwise, is sufficient to establish moral judgement. If a powerful person or entity claims to have my best interest at heart, and that's why I should have faith in their instruction, I would not take it at its word and. Instead, I would analyze the consequence of the instruction I'm given to determine help vs harm. Thus I could never equate what is morally good to being what is commanded by a god or gods.
I don't believe Christians (or any religious person) have objective morality, with no subjective input. Moral instruction from their religion must be filtered through a number people's interpretations. The subjective view of the deity, the author of the scripture, the translator of the scripture, the reader and religious organization's input (if not non-denominational). All these filters add individual and subjective meaning.
I don't believe Christians (or any religious person) doesn't have moral autonomy. This is shown by brain scanning studies which show consulting one's personal moral compass is the same as considering 'What would Jesus do,' meaning religious people superimpose their own moral judgement on their religion and that they are informing their moral judgement, not the other way around.
Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs
Creating God in one's own image - Not Exactly Rocket Science
Dear God, please confirm what I already believe

Further, here's a handy video series talking about atheistic morality which goes at length and far more eloquently than I can:

 

[1robin]

Didn't I mention Titus 1:10? It's a few verses down, in that context.

You certainly did, I just missed. I apologize. I don't think the context will be any different buy let me post 1 Titus and comment on it.

New International Version
For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group.

And here is your interpretation of that verse.

Paul said they "disown [God] by their works.

It is especially important that you bolded the word disown. I checked over 20 translations and none of them contained the word disown. I read the verses before and after Titus 10. They do not contain anything about disowning either. What Paul was talking about is false teaching, especially among Jewish converts. BTW that is exactly the same issue Paul was talking about in the verse from Galatians I thought you were referring to. Jews who left became Christians were teaching that Christians must also obey all the laws of the "law" (basically the OT), Paul said their teaching was meaningless and deceptive, but he did not say that they therefor were separated from Christ.

Issues concerning works and grace are very hard to distinguish and long and careful study is required to properly understand teachings concerning them. I spent 3 years at about 20 hours per week studying the ontology of substitutionary atonement, alone. Condemning something a Christian does and that Christian himself becoming condemned again after being born again are two radically different things.

Yes, I agree, from these types. But Christians can stop following Christ, i.e., lose their faith, by committing deliberate sins. That's what I meant, in referencing 1 Corinthians 5.

That's why the Greek Scriptures (NT) writers were constantly admonishing their brothers, on building up and strengthening their faith. Their genuine faith, in turn, will impel them to good works.

But, as James said, if good works aren't evident in a person's life, their faith "is dead". Then how would John 3:16 apply to us?

What you stated above puts you squarely in group 2 not group 3. Your saying that salvation comes by grace but must be maintained by works. That is a logical contradiction, its like saying a person must be a married bachelor, or a square circle.

However to show you what the logical contradiction is takes more work.

1. First your going to have to explain exactly what it means to follow Christ down to the last detail in
all categories.
2. Then you will have to show the exact line within your standard that determines the exact point at
which I am guilty of not following Christ.
3. Is no longer fully following Christ a sin?
4. Did Christ not come to forgive all sin?
5. Is not God the author and finisher of our faith?

Let me give some more examples of grace.
Paul again, I love Paul. He knew more about the law than all the other apostles combined yet taught more about grace than the rest combined:

New Living Translation
But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.

That is the description of a man who had not one good work to his name, yet the man himself was saved. This was possible because it is Christ's merits (not ours) by which we are judged. That is what substitutionary atonement means. Christ's righteousness is substituted in place of my own unrighteousness and my sin was imparted to Christ and fully punished on the cross.

The bible says that once we come to know Christ:
New International Version
Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you."

If I stop following Christ (whatever that means) and he forsakes me then the verse above is a lie.

Paul again:
Ephesians 2:8-9

New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.…

We see again that nothing I do has anything to do with me being saved, it is Christ who is the guarantor of my salvation. Whatever I lack in righteousness was paid for entirely by Christ, if you think that I must earn what Christ paid for, then how is it that Christ's sacrifice lacked or failed to produce exactly what we all need?

Camp #3. It is God's gift. But it's not given to the ungrateful.

1. You argued above for camp number 2, but your doing as I predicted, and back peddling into camp 3 when challenged. I am not being critical, it takes a lot of time to gain clarity about what salvation requires.
2. You cannot be grateful for something unless you have it.
3. So only once I have salvation can I be grateful for it.
4. That cannot possibly mean that gratefulness is required to get salvation.
5. You describing another logical contradiction, or a square circle.
6. Keep this in mind, the verse does not say it is the gift from God or God's gift (hermeneutics and exegesis is very critical here). The verse say that salvation is the gift OF God. God is the gift, when born again, the holy spirit (one of the three persons composing the being of God) comes to life in our hearts forever. We literally get God when we are saved, he promises to never leave or forsake us, and he paid the entire price to save me.

I think your underestimating God.

With that in mind, It's through our faith that we "gain grace", and attain a righteous standing. But a dead faith, is no faith!

I believe your quoting James in the wrong context. James is describing what should be apparent if someone is a Christian, not what someone must do to become a Christian. In fact the greatest bible commentators interpret James in that context. Also keep in mind where faith comes from.

1. Hebrews 12:2King James Version (KJV)
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith,
Jesus will not fail to complete the work begun in every Christian.
2. New International Version
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last
day."
In a single verse we see that faith comes from God (not me), and that everyone who is born again
(receives Christ) will be raised up by Christ (not by our works).
3. One last verse (I do not want to over burden you):
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. 29My
Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
…
How is it that I can do (crawl out of Christ's hand by failing to follow him) what Christ said no one could do
above?
4. Why would grace (once applied) require maintenance by works? That is another married bachelor. Are
you familiar with the logical laws about non-contradiction?

HC if you doubt the context I claim the book of James was written in just let me know and I will quote from the great biblical commentators concerning the verses you paraphrased above. Also, I would recommend you simply quote the verses you bring up instead of paraphrasing them. Good to hear from you, talk to you again soon.

 

[Underhill]

You will have a chance to meet God and to address your mutual concerns.

Perhaps. The more likely scenario is that the whole thing is a fabrication crafted by humans.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What an utter parcel of bitter gutted ignorant nonsense. You couldn't hit your butt with a hand full of sand. You truly have no idea of what you are trying to talk about. Go back to spray painting bathroom walls

simurgh sure seems to have a better handle on what they're talking about than you do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've never met someone that blithely unaware. But I have personally witnessed to many people, some of whom turned out to be believers, atheists and all manner in between, and all of them admitted that can be at times selfish, self-centered, all about themselves.

I didn't say I couldn't BE selfish or occasionally do selfish things, I simply answered that I am not a selfish PERSON. I.E: I am not a person for whom acting selfish is a common, routine or defining characteristic. Most of the time, I do not act selfishly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is simple. Atheists are typically moral realists because they thus avoid "sin", "evil", "conscience" and . . . judgment.

Nonsense. Atheists have a conscience and are capable of judgement. I may as well make the argument that theists are moral absolutists because they aren't capable of bearing the burden of determining something for themselves and would rather defer any responsibility for their moral decisions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I appreciate your reply.
Since I know that everlasting life through faith is a free gift, it can't be earned, so I'm in camp #3.

But a person can take themselves away from God!


I'm sure you'd agree, your quotation of Deuteronomy 31:6 and similar passages has to be understood in light of other Scriptures.

Deuteronomy tells us that God is faithful....but will we be?
(Were the Israelites?)


Let's consider a few Scriptures:
Zephaniah 2:3...."...Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you may be concealed on the day of Jehovah's anger."

1 Chronicles 28:9...."...If you search for him, He will let himself be found by you. But if you leave Him, He will cast you off forever."

That's why Jesus said more than once, "he that endures to the end, is the one that will be saved."

I quoted that earlier, you must have missed it.

And Jesus also said, "Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life." -- Revelation 2:10

And what about the Israelites? Although in a dedicated position to God, they were considered unfaithful even before Jesus was killed, and Jesus' words to them aptly applied: "Your house is abandoned to you." Why? Because they were 'killers of the prophets.' (Matthew 23:38) Their works were bad. As a nation, they lost Gods approval.

We can, too.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@1robin, have you ever considered that maybe faithful Christians could be classed into 2 groups, both of which would have God's approval?

If you would, please read Matthew 25:33-46.

Jesus actually mentions 3 groups of individuals, one of whom is disobedient (although calling Jesus "Lord") and lost God's favor, but the other 2 have it.

Hint, I know you see the sheep and the goats, but there's a third.
If you'd like to continue this privately, that would be fine.

 

[1robin]

I didn't use the word "God" in the OP.

Are you trying to suggest that I may only respond with the words you used in your OP? I hope not. Your OP was about morality, the only thing that can make morality objective (true regardless who, if any one, believes it is) is God. God is the only thing that matters concerning the ontology of morality.

Hint: It is recommend to use simplistic, absolute discussions when talking to atheists. They LOVE to go far afield when it is simple to see they are subjective regarding truth, reality, morality, etc. and need to start, as we all do, on a firm foundation.

1. If objective morality exists, then God exists.
2. You claimed that you believed objective morality exists.
3. Therefor you must believe that God exists.

4. From that I deduced that you were a theist.

I can't make an argument any simpler than that.

I have over 13,000 debates. I know all about how to talk to atheists BB, and I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Bwaaaaha ha ha. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZ

Haha... I was following the line of posts that lead to this. I feel like I have to ask - do you feel Jesus would have responded in many of the ways you have? Do you believe God approves of this type of behavior toward your fellow man?

Not that this is too surprising. I have met many a jerk who hailed as Christian in my time - but it is always fascinating when I end up realizing that I (a heathen atheist) know better how one would need to behave to adhere to the Christian faith than most Christians seem to.

 

[Pudding]

If rape is always wrong, how can this be? Wouldn't that be a moral absolute?

What i mean is that: to me, in my opinion, rape is always wrong.

I doesn't imply that rape is always wrong to every people ever live on the earth.

Just like if i say apple always taste bad to me, it doesn't mean apple always taste bad to every people ever live on the earth.

 

[1robin]

Seriously? I mean your question answers itself. The criteria is the planet being as screwed up as it is.

Wording the same thing differently will not make it any better. So far you have reworded the bible and reworded your position. You have yet to provide anything I have requested.

Show me exactly how screwed up the world is on some kind of actual scale, show me exactly why a good God and that world cannot coexist at the same time, and show me how you knew either one of the two.

I don't. You artificially make one more important than the other because of the importance you give the next life. The vast majority of the world operates based upon the impact on this life.

I do not know how two tings could have a greater magnitude of difference concerning importance between the false belief that India would be better without the British (or even if it was actually true), and that death its self is conquerable. If you can't see it then I can't make it any simpler and will have to move on.

How does that make him wrong? His goals were solid. The rest of his country let him down.

Have you ever seen a movie called the life of Brian? If so do you remember the what have the Romans ever done for us scene? Not comprehending the inability to do what you are demanding to be allowed to do (especially when it affects millions) was a pretty big flaw in Gandhi's entire position.

It's all in perspective. You believe god loves you and thus cannot see it. But the notion that all suffering is the result of misbehavior simply ignores reality. Cancer is not the result of behavior in most cases. Tumors, birth defects and any number of other medical conditions occurs naturally and randomly. People often die in accidents where they did no wrong. Kids who haven't even reached an age of consent or understanding are in cancer wards around the world.

You did not restrict your claims to natural evil or gratuitous evil but it would not have made your argument right regardless. For your argument to work you must show that an actual world could be created with less suffering and evil that would still actualize as much belief in God while still retaining freewill. The "problem of evil" isn't really supported by the consensus of even atheist philosophers any longer.

2 additional points.
1. Without God you still have the same amount of suffering without any of the hope he provides. Your world view means Hitler and Billy Graham's ultimate fates are identical.
2. In my understanding of the bible Hell is eventual non-existence and no innocent child winds up there regardless. God only judges the response to the revelation received and our ability to process it.

And you are right. The 'loving' creator made this world (according to the bible) knowing all of this would be the result. He then set a trap, knowing adam and eve would fail, and doomed their ancestors to eternal punishment because they ate an apple. As the bible says, "By their works you shall know them." By his works, laid out clearly in the bible, I know what god is and I don't like it much.

Are you ever going to actually post what is in the actual bible, instead of the false bible you made up? He gave Adam and Eve freewill. If they did not have the capacity to disobey (which is what the analogy of the tree of knowledge) then they did not have freewill, no freewill no actual love. Apparently you prefer to be an automaton created by a tyrant God. Adam and Eve's climactic act of freewill was to disobey God even though he merely gave them 1 thing they were told not to do, God's climactic act of freewill was to pay the entire price to redeem a race of morally insane beings. Yet you blame God for the acts of men and deny him his actual act of redemption. I don't like the God you made up either.

No it isn't as everything I have said is in the book. God is omniscient. It's in there. He created man and woman knowing they would sin. Chose the punishment. Watched them sin and then condemned his creation. It's all in the bible. I am not changing what the book says, just framing it differently.

Nothing you have said was contained in God's revelation.

I am a voracious reader and have been since I was a child. Read thousands of books. Tested at the college level by the time I was 12. So please stop with the petty insults just because you don't like what I am saying.

Then why are you so obviously misrepresenting the bible? So far you have failed to state any formal argument (I actually know what the formal argument is your trying to make, but I can't get you to actually state it), and interpreted the bible contradictorily from every mainstream commentator in the last 2000 years.

Of course it's silly.

When your "mere atheism" sells a copy for every 100 copies of "mere Christianity" has sold I might take you seriously.

According to the bible yes.

I believe I already stated that his description as contained in the same texts by which we come to know of Christ at all, so yes the bible is the authoritative work upon which Christ's nature is revealed.

So he writes the rules, knowing they would be broken, then forgives them. It would be hard to imagine my gratitude over such an act of kindness (that is sarcasm).

Do you also believe that parents who have children knowing they would break the rules (given for their own benefit) and require correction are evil? If so then we ought to all build little robots without freewill and quit producing them. Or perhaps that is a sin against the God of social Darwinism.

So he pulls these people out of heaven. Good on him.

Have you ever read the book your condemning? In the OT we are only taught about Sheol which merely means the grave or realm of the dead, in the NT we are told about a future resurrection where people are either sent to live with God in eternal contentment or Hell for eternal annihilation. No where does it have what you describe.

I give up, you apparently can't be bothered to even feign sincerity at this point. I will leave you to it.