The Garden of Eden

[jimb]

Interesting hypothetical speculative discussion on a mythical place that never existed,

By the way there is an interesting argument that the lost paradise has its roots in the paleo history of the Middle East. At one time the Middle East and Northern Africa was a lush paradise of grasslands. lakes and abundant herds of wildlife. After the Ice Age this paradise became arid and desert. The sea levels were rising, and all the tribes were driven into the river valleys to fight a turf war. No more paradise.

As far as you know, it's "a mythical place that never existed" (which is redundant). Of course, you can't prove that.

How do you know there was an "Ice Age"?

 

[2ndpillar]

his directive not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", is self-determined knowledge, Marxist atheistic humanism, exampled in todays Progressive Marxist movement, whereas the choses made by man are better than those made by God, which is in opposition to God setting the Commandments. Marxist Progressivism always ends in "destruction", whether fast or slow.

 

[DavidSMoore]

As far as you know, it's "a mythical place that never existed" (which is redundant). Of course, you can't prove that.

If the garden of Eden exists then it should be extremely easy to find because we know exactly where it should be. Here's what the Bible says:

A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold, and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
(Genesis 2:10-14, NRSVue)

Not only that, but after God expelled the humans from Eden he posted guards at the entrance:

He drove out the humans, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
(Genesis 3:24, NRSVue)

So all you have to do to show that the garden of Eden exists is to go to the confluence of the four rivers-- the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates-- and to look for cherubim and a flaming sword.

Oddly, no one has every found any such thing.

 

[jimb]

If the garden of Eden exists then it should be extremely easy to find because we know exactly where it should be. Here's what the Bible says:



Not only that, but after God expelled the humans from Eden he posted guards at the entrance:



So all you have to do to show that the garden of Eden exists is to go to the confluence of the four rivers-- the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates-- and to look for cherubim and a flaming sword.

Oddly, no one has every found any such thing.

If no one has ever found the precise location, that doesn't mean a thing. There are quite a few estimates about its location. However, since it existed at the beginning of the earth's creation, it has undoubtedly changed over time, i.e., it's no longer an orchard. It's probably desert by now.

BTW, your fantasy is nothing but nonsense. Why the implied sarcasm?

 

[DavidSMoore]

If no one has ever found the precise location, that doesn't mean a thing. There are quite a few estimates about its location. However, since it existed at the beginning of the earth's creation, it has undoubtedly changed over time, i.e., it's no longer an orchard. It's probably desert by now.

BTW, your fantasy is nothing but nonsense. Why the implied sarcasm?

Read this: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

Then answer these 3 questions:

1. Do you agree with the Bible that God fashioned the universe from the preexisting chaos?
2. Do you agree with the Bible that the universe is an ocean of water?
3. Do you agree with the Bible that the earth is a flat disk?

 

[jimb]

Read this: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

Then answer these 3 questions:

1. Do you agree with the Bible that God fashioned the universe from the preexisting chaos?
2. Do you agree with the Bible that the universe is an ocean of water?
3. Do you agree with the Bible that the earth is a flat disk?

I'm not interested in reading an entire thread before I post my thoughts.

1) Not exactly. God (actually Jesus) had to create the heavens and the earth from something, but I don't know what that "something" is.
2) No
3) No

If you're very interested in this I suggest reading the following (NET notes)...

1. Genesis 1:1 tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.sn In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3)—it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10).
2. Genesis 1:1 sn God. The ending of the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) is commonly used to indicate plural nouns, but also has other functions such as indicating abstract concepts, or the concrete expression of an abstract concept. For example, Saul is referred to as “lord” with the morpheme that often marks plural, but meaning that he, as king, is the concrete expression of being a “lord.” When referring to the one true God, אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) marks God as the actual expression of deity. And the verb that is used with it is singular. In contrast, when the same form is used as a plural reference to the false gods of the nations, the associated verb is plural. Likely the term was a title for the true God but is used so frequently that it becomes viewed as a name.
3. Genesis 1:1 tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (baraʾ) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15; 65:17).
4. Genesis 1:1 tn Or “the entire universe”; or “the sky and the dry land.” This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The “heavens and the earth” were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). “Heavens” refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while “earth” refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).

 

[Anne1]

Read this: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

Then answer these 3 questions:

1. Do you agree with the Bible that God fashioned the universe from the preexisting chaos?
2. Do you agree with the Bible that the universe is an ocean of water?
3. Do you agree with the Bible that the earth is a flat disk?

All of Genesis is allegorical. You have utterly, completely misunderstood.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I'm not interested in reading an entire thread before I post my thoughts.

1) Not exactly. God (actually Jesus) had to create the heavens and the earth from something, but I don't know what that "something" is.
2) No
3) No

If you're very interested in this I suggest reading the following (NET notes)...

1. Genesis 1:1 tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.sn In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3)—it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10).
2. Genesis 1:1 sn God. The ending of the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) is commonly used to indicate plural nouns, but also has other functions such as indicating abstract concepts, or the concrete expression of an abstract concept. For example, Saul is referred to as “lord” with the morpheme that often marks plural, but meaning that he, as king, is the concrete expression of being a “lord.” When referring to the one true God, אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) marks God as the actual expression of deity. And the verb that is used with it is singular. In contrast, when the same form is used as a plural reference to the false gods of the nations, the associated verb is plural. Likely the term was a title for the true God but is used so frequently that it becomes viewed as a name.
3. Genesis 1:1 tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (baraʾ) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15; 65:17).
4. Genesis 1:1 tn Or “the entire universe”; or “the sky and the dry land.” This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The “heavens and the earth” were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). “Heavens” refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while “earth” refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).

Yes I'm familiar with the NET Bible and its extensive notes.
Question #1: Here's how the first three verses of the Bible is rendered in the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition published in 2019:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
(Genesis 1:1-3, NRSVue)

That reading makes it clear that God fashioned the universe from the preexisting chaos. BTW the organization that holds the copyright to the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition is the National Council of Churches of the United States of America. So it's about as orthodox a translation as you'll find.

Here's how that translation renders the events of Day 2:

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky.
(Genesis 1:6-7, NRSVue)

Why would there be waters above the sky? Because the author believed that the universe is an ocean of water. And why would the sky be in the shape of a dome? Because the author believed that the earth is a flat disk.

 

[DavidSMoore]

All of Genesis is allegorical. You have utterly, completely misunderstood.

There are a whole lot of people in the Christian world who believe that absolutely every single word in Genesis is to be taken literally, not allegorically. The story of the creation is just that: a story. It's not fact. It's not true. And parts of it were clearly borrowed from other ancient creation story traditions.

 

[Anne1]

There are a whole lot of people in the Christian world who believe that absolutely every single word in Genesis is to be taken literally, not allegorically. The story of the creation is just that: a story. It's not fact. It's not true. And parts of it were clearly borrowed from other ancient creation story traditions.

It's an allegory. Not myth, not fiction, and not to be read with painful, childish literalism.

St Paul - in the very first Christian writings - talked of Adam as typos. He was using typology, very much a part of Second Temple Jewish reading of scripture. Check out Philo.

The Catholic Church is the largest denomination in the world. I believe there are only a few Protestant denominations who believe in the literal use of scripture. Why are you talking only to those few people?

 

[DavidSMoore]

It's an allegory. Not myth, not fiction, and not to be read with painful, childish literalism.

St Paul - in the very first Christian writings - talked of Adam as typos. He was using typology, very much a part of Second Temple Jewish reading of scripture. Check out Philo.

The Catholic Church is the largest denomination in the world. I believe there are only a few Protestant denominations who believe in the literal use of scripture. Why are you talking only to those few people?

Here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about the creation:

We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”:
If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.
(Catholic Catechism, 296; Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraph 4)

That's the opposite of what the very first sentence of the Bible actually says. The point of the Catholic Church's reading is to "prove" that God is omnipotent. But in fact the story of the creation says the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. The Church just doesn't want its followers to believe that.

 

[Anne1]

That's the opposite of what the very first sentence of the Bible actually says. The point of the Catholic Church's reading is to "prove" that God is omnipotent. But in fact the story of the creation says the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. The Church just doesn't want its followers to believe that.

Sorry, but once again you ignoring that scripture is to be understood with tradition. Not by you declaring this sentence or that sentence proves your point.

This was all decided two thousand years ago and has been proclaimed as truth since then.

Why won't you tackle what the majority of Christians believe? Aren't you able to do that?

 

[DavidSMoore]

Sorry, but once again you ignoring that scripture is to be understood with tradition. Not by you declaring this sentence or that sentence proves your point.

This was all decided two thousand years ago and has been proclaimed as truth since then.

Why won't you tackle what the majority of Christians believe? Aren't you able to do that?

That's exactly what I did in the very first posting of this thread. I argued against Original Sin. That's a key belief of Catholicism, and also for several protestant faiths.

 

[Anne1]

That's exactly what I did in the very first posting of this thread. I argued against Original Sin. That's a key belief of Catholicism, and also for several protestant faiths.

Sorry, let me get this clear. You haven't noticed that people are all sick with sin, flawed, broken? What's your explanation for the existence of evil? What's your explanation for Mao murdering some 50 million people. for the Soviets slaughtering maybe another 50 million? Because human nature is basically good? Recently they found a mass grave from the Soviet era near Chelyabinsk with 300,000 slaughtered people.

A report published in 1995 just after the communists fell from power estimated ""200,000 Russian Orthodox priests, monks, and nuns had been slain and another 500,000 imprisoned " And in the same report "in the time before World War II an estimated 1,000 Roman Catholic priests had been killed outright...614 parishes closed...Of those priests arrested and interred a grand total of twelve would survive the Gulag (p 277).

May I repeat that? Twelve would survive.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Sorry, let me get this clear. You haven't noticed that people are all sick with sin, flawed, broken? What's your explanation for the existence of evil? What's your explanation for Mao murdering some 50 million people. for the Soviets slaughtering maybe another 50 million? Because human nature is basically good? Recently they found a mass grave from the Soviet era near Chelyabinsk with 300,000 slaughtered people.

A report published in 1995 just after the communists fell from power estimated ""200,000 Russian Orthodox priests, monks, and nuns had been slain and another 500,000 imprisoned " And in the same report "in the time before World War II an estimated 1,000 Roman Catholic priests had been killed outright...614 parishes closed...Of those priests arrested and interred a grand total of twelve would survive the Gulag (p 277).

May I repeat that? Twelve would survive.

Did you forget about the Taiping Rebellion, the most deadly religious war in history-- all the product of Christian excess? Or that the Second World War was instigated by the good Lutherans of Germany? Or that the Catholics of Italy fully supported Mussolini?

I'm certainly not excusing Mao or Stalin or Putin or Genghis Khan or Alexander the "Great" for that matter. But let's just take Mao as an example. Jung Chang in her marvelous biography documented about 35 million deaths during the great leap forward and another 35 million during the cultural revolution. During the great leap forward Mao shipped grain to the Balkans as a way of demonstrating the awesome abundance of China's agriculture. In the meantime his people were starving. If you went out into the countryside in the spring you would find that none of the trees had leaves-- because that's all the people had to eat. Mao even set quotas for the numbers of people he wanted to die. Yes, the people worshiped him and followed him where they should not have gone. But the catastrophe of the great leap forward was primarily a consequence of Mao's designs.

Are humans inherently evil? I think many people are easily misled by demagogues. Mao and Hitler and Mussolini were definitely demagogues. I am all in favor of anything that can deter people from following demagogues. My personal belief is that democracy is the best defense we have.

And there are certainly people like Ted Bundy. He enjoyed killing. His biographer, Ann Rule, suggested that he may have committed his first murder at the age of 14. The vast majority of people on this planet aren't murderers at the age of 14, or at any age.

I'm a member of a Rotary club. There are over 40,000 Rotary clubs around the world. There are people of every race, creed, social background, and culture in Rotary. The motto of Rotary is "Service Above Self." There are non-Christian Rotarians who are working tirelessly to be of service to others. I find it impossible to believe that those Rotarians who are not Christians are going to be damned by God on the day of judgment just because they didn't choose Jesus to be their personal savior.

There have been more than 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet. The vast majority of those people were not Christians-- and they had never heard of Jesus or the Bible or the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes or the Crucifixion. So how would it have even been possible for those billions of people to choose Jesus as their savior? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[2ndpillar]

Are humans inherently evil? I think many people are easily misled by demagogues. Mao and Hitler and Mussolini were definitely demagogues. I am all in favor of anything that can deter people from following demagogues. My personal belief is that democracy is the best defense we have.

Mao and Stalin used Marx, and Hitler took his ques from Roosevelt, when using the same Democratic isolation of people/blacks (Jim Crow) on the Jews. Hitler also took ques from Mussolini, who considered himself a revived Julius Caesar. Keep in mind that Roosevelt was a Progressive Marxist/socialist. The Marxist are simply Atheistic humanist, who substitute themselves for being god. The same goes for other false prophets, such as the self-proclaimed apostle Paul. Forget God's commandments and follow your own twisted heart to your own destruction, usually in the form of a long-drawn-out death. Caesar is simply the king/beast of Revelation 13:4-8, who received his "authority" from the "dragon"/"devil". If you live in the U.S., you don't live in a Democracy, you live in a constitutional Republic, in which the Progressives are trying to change, and make it into a Democracy, so they can take everyone's rights away. Their modus operandi is to change the elector system into a majority wins all, and make the corrupt cities, the power centers of the country, leaving the deplorables in the lurch, and turning the country into a gender confused, DEI, Me Too, drug infested, illegal migrant voting hell hole. If you want a democracy, go to Russia. If you want a hell hole, let Progressive media and Social media control the narrative, let the rich (Google) and the politicians (Biden load forgiveness) buy the votes, and then ship in illegal voters, mixed in among the dead and multiple vote voters in blue cities, and you have the democracy the Democrats pray for. Give D.C. two Senators, and raise the number of Supreme Court judges, and your Democrats will think they have a died and gone to heaven.

 

[Anne1]

Are humans inherently evil? I think many people are easily misled by demagogues. Mao and Hitler and Mussolini were definitely demagogues. I am all in favor of anything that can deter people from following demagogues. My personal belief is that democracy is the best defense we have.

And there are certainly people like Ted Bundy. He enjoyed killing. His biographer, Ann Rule, suggested that he may have committed his first murder at the age of 14. The vast majority of people on this planet aren't murderers at the age of 14, or at any age.

I'm a member of a Rotary club.

There have been more than 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet. The vast majority of those people were not Christians-- and they had never heard of Jesus or the Bible or the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes or the Crucifixion. So how would it have even been possible for those billions of people to choose Jesus as their savior? It just doesn't make any sense.

So sorry, but I found your post confusing. I am arguing that there is original sin, and that explains the existence of evil in the world.

You give examples of human evil but argue against the existence of evil and instead propose that people are stupid and easily led by powerful men.

We are still ankle deep in the blood of the millions slaughtered by the communists. Putting it all on stupidity does not convince me.

Then, you bring up Bundy but add that "The vast majority of people on this planet aren't murderers at the age of 14, or at any age".

Again, this confuses me. You appear to give Bundy as an example of real evil - so does evil exist? does original sin explain it? - but suggest we don't ned to worry about it because most people aren't serial killers.

Nor are your examples of Christians committing sins convincing me of anything save that original sin exists and human beings will frequently fall, even if the truth has been handed to them.

Your example of the Rotary is not compelling. As Pew research recently revealed, Christians give 50% more to charity than any other group. In fact, research shows Christians lie less, cheat less, and commit adultery less than other groups.

"There have been more than 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet. The vast majority of those people were not Christians"

Yes, and isn't that sad? If only people were truly good, and followed true Christian belief, instead of being sadly flawed, think of how many more would have been converted. Think of what we could have accomplished if human nature wasn't fallen.

But human nature is fallen. With original sin.

 

[F1fan]

The "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", is self-determined knowledge, Marxist atheistic humanism, exampled in todays Progressive Marxist movement, whereas the choses made by man are better than those made by God, which is in opposition to God setting the Commandments. Marxist Progressivism always ends in "destruction", whether fast or slow.

Have you ever read Marx's Communist Manifesto? The way you are critical of Marxism It sounds like you have. So what is it you don't like about it?

BTW I did read it in college and about 90% of the class agreed with the jist of what Marx said. Tell us what you don't like.

 

[2ndpillar]

There have been more than 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet. The vast majority of those people were not Christians-- and they had never heard of Jesus or the Bible or the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes or the Crucifixion. So how would it have even been possible for those billions of people to choose Jesus as their savior? It just doesn't make any sense.

The "message" of Yeshua was to treat others as you would want to be treated (Mt 7:12). That is the same message of Budha, and Confucious. The 10 Commandments are summarized in to treat others as you want to be treated. "Jesus", or the proper name, Yeshua, means YHWY saves. Yeshua does not save. When he, as the son of man returns (Mt 24:29-30), it is going to be the judgment upon the nations/world (Rev 19:15). The only ones "saved"/"survive"/"escape" per Joel 2:31-32, are those in Jerusalem, and on Mount Zion, which in general leaves out the Gentile church. As per the parables of Yeshua, the "wicked"/"tares", those who were produced from the "tare seed", "message planted by the "devil", will at the "end of the age", be gathered and thrown into the fire (Mt 13:24-30). The message is to beware of the message you consume/believe. People are in general, uniformed, and misinformed. In today's world, there is little excuse to be uniformed.

 

[F1fan]

So sorry, but I found your post confusing. I am arguing that there is original sin, and that explains the existence of evil in the world.

So you believe in the Garden story? You do realize that God created evil, and is completely responsible for all evil that occurs, yes?

You give examples of human evil but argue against the existence of evil and instead propose that people are stupid and easily led by powerful men.

Like religious leaders over history.

We are still ankle deep in the blood of the millions slaughtered by the communists. Putting it all on stupidity does not convince me.

Don't ignore the Lutherans and Catholics who committed the Holocaust. We can blame strong ideologies for a lack of moral dacency, not those who use their moral sense.

Then, you bring up Bundy but add that "The vast majority of people on this planet aren't murderers at the age of 14, or at any age".

Again, this confuses me. You appear to give Bundy as an example of real evil - so does evil exist? does original sin explain it? - but suggest we don't ned to worry about it because most people aren't serial killers.

In psychology no one refers to evil, but mental health problems.

Nor are your examples of Christians committing sins convincing me of anything save that original sin exists and human beings will frequently fall, even if the truth has been handed to them.

What truth does Christianity offer that is factual and reasoned? From what I see none of it has any basis in fact. How do you explain so many Christians committed the Holocaust? What truth does Christianity hold that allows a belief that it is OK to murder Jews? If you have the truth you should have the answer.

Your example of the Rotary is not compelling. As Pew research recently revealed, Christians give 50% more to charity than any other group. In fact, research shows Christians lie less, cheat less, and commit adultery less than other groups.

Could it be they only claim to give more? My best friend worked for a software company in Dallas some years ago and he had access to the owner's tax records. He told me thye claimed to give a certain amont to charity, but he knew it was no where near what they claimed. Many Christians are prideful, and have a huge chip on their shoulder that they have to pretend reflects their lives. I am an atheist today because of the immorality and hypocrisy I observed of my Christian family members as a kid. I hear pride is a sin, but it's only a sin if others know about it.

"There have been more than 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet. The vast majority of those people were not Christians"

Yes, and isn't that sad?

It's the universe God created. Blame God. Notice how Christianity is not known in many parts of the world because other religions are prevalent.

If only people were truly good, and followed true Christian belief, instead of being sadly flawed, think of how many more would have been converted. Think of what we could have accomplished if human nature wasn't fallen.

Like committing the Holocaust? Being Christian guarantees nothing. In fact many Christians I observe are vastly more vile than they realize. That's the toxicity of more conservative forms of Christianity in the world.

But human nature is fallen. With original sin.

Just as God designed.