Johnny Skeptic

Message to Berggy: Since you do not believe that hell exists, you need to have a disussion about that issue with rhutchin. His favorite argument is Pascal's Wager.

If the Bible was more clear about hell, slavery, the events at the tomb, and a lot of other issues, the world would be a much better place in which to live.

Angra Mainyu

The point is that God wouldn’t need to create a universe with such laws of nature. Yes, God would be responsible for bears attacking people, but it’s even more clear when people are completely incapable to predict what’s going to happen, and die anyway (i.e., an earthquake).

Of course, God didn’t have to create an environment in which people had to be killed by bears, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc., but He chose to do so [Here and later in this post, I sometimes assuming God’s existence, etc., for argument’s sake, to make the post more readable, but an implicit “if God existed” should be assumed].


The way it was made by God, under your assumption. The scientist would also be the makers of those people with cancer genes.

I don’t have any children, but even if someone has children, the fact is that they don’t know that their children will become murderers. They don’t know whether they will do more harm than good. Most people aren’t murderers, and the parents in question probably doesn’t want to raise murderers, either, so they’ll teach their children not to murder. Granted, that could fail, but unless you argue that most people do more harm than good, the argument isn’t convincing.

As for the children suffering, yes, everybody suffers. However, they will also have happiness. It’s not clear that their suffering would outweigh their happiness, or that they’ll make the world a better place.

However, there’s a key difference: humans cannot choose to have children that will certainly not suffer, or make such an environment for them. On the other hand, God didn’t have to make a world of suffering (He could have created a Heaven, could He not? But He chose to create a world of suffering instead).

Furthermore, if God is perfect (and thus, there’s no evil in God), then God knowingly created evil: arguing that He didn’t want evil, but allow it in order to allow free will, doesn’t work, because before Creation, there was no evil or suffering or imperfection, but God decided to follow a course of action that He knew would result in evil, suffering and imperfection. He’s responsible for that – and of course, that contradicts the assumption that He’s perfect, good, etc.


I was thinking about judgments to be more precise (because one might do something that one doesn’t consider right sometimes). But in general, my point is that we all do. I acknowledge that.

As I mentioned, my argument is that everyone does that, though not everyone recognizes it.

Ok, sorry, I think I had misread your argument on this specific point.

My reply would be that if you can prove that the Bible specifically states that there is to be no personal interpretations to anything it states, that means you can actually prove that most people with a certain cultural background would interpret the Bible to make such claim.

That said, the Bible might make that claim. I’m not sure, but I’d have to decline the challenge to a formal debate, as I takes a lot of time and frankly, it’s a minor issue for me, and I have no problem in assuming (under the previously explained understanding of what it means for a book to say something) that the Bible makes that claim, as you said.

So, let’s say the Bible specifically states that there is to be "no" personal interpretation to anything that it states. However, that would not change the fact that there are multiple interpretations. The Biblical claim would not be correct.

That depends on your definition. It’s interesting that I also have had a discussion with rhutchin about the definition of “Christian” (in another thread).
I proposed a couple of definitions; the simplest one would be to say a Christian is whoever considers herself or himself a Christian. Under such definition, both rhutchin and you would be Christians.

On the other hand, it would seem as though your definition would exclude him. Also, I have the impression that his definition would likely exclude you (though I’m not certain of that).

I prefer the inclusive definition, but semantics aside, my point remains the same; I just need to make minor adjustments in order to adapt it to your beliefs (I’d give more details if I had more info on your particular beliefs, but I’ll try to be as clear as I can ).

You believe in a world in which many, possibly most people are thrown into a lake of fire where they die, because of thought crimes, etc. On the other hand, some are not executed, and thus live forever. Further, it’s clear that there’s pain, etc. (I already made that point). God is responsible not only for the suffering in the world, but for the execution of billions of people.


How come you cannot have one without the other?
You claimed earlier that there was no suffering in the beginning, and I suppose there won’t be much suffering after resurrection, either. At least, things would clearly would be much better, with no disease, death, etc. So, it seems God could have created a better world.

But even if it had been beyond its power, He would have then chosen to create a world in which there has to be pain, disease and death, introducing pain, disease and death in the universe. Here, I’m using “universe” in a broad sense, including God. If you prefer to say that God created the universe, then I’d define Multiverse as the God + Creation, and argue that God introduced pain, disease, death and evil in the Multiverse. Either way, God introduced all that…under the assumption, of course, that there was no evilness in God; but the assumption seems to defeat itself as a consequence of God’s actions).

Given that the selectors didn’t know anything about what we now call science, whether the Bible contradicts it is no evidence with regard to the selector’s knowledge.
My point, however, is different: the selectors only had a bunch of text making claims, and they had no reason to conclude that some of those texts had been divinely inspired, as we have no reason to conclude that the text they selected are divinely inspired.

In addition, there have been different selections. Catholics and Protestants have different bibles, for instance (e.g., the Apocrypha). Of course, Christians and Jews have different bibles as well.

I’m sorry but in this case, you’d have to get into details if you want to back your point, because the idea that something in “unnatural” and thus wrong is one of the most confusing notions I’ve ever seen.

I’ll try to make an argument on that, but it’d be easier if you could at least define what you mean by “natural” and “unnatural”, please?

To the point:

First, that sexuality originally evolved as a reproductive adaptation, doesn’t mean that evolution didn’t continue its course and resulted in different uses of it – unless you argue that everything is a reproductive adaptation in an indirect manner, but that’s beside the point here.

I’ll try an example to be more clear: bonobos are the closest relatives of humans, and they use sexuality not only directly for reproduction, but for social reason. Actually, bisexuality seems to be common (e.g., http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html, or just go to google ).

That’s an example, but the point is that homosexual behavior is common in some species… including humans.

So, my question is: how can those animals be acting in an unnatural manner? Are they not part of nature? But the fact is that that applies to humans as well. I’m not sure how anything can be unnatural, as we are part of nature.

Second, how about, say, masturbation?
It clearly isn’t necessary for reproduction, and in fact it implies the use of some energy that could be used otherwise. Is masturbation unnatural as well?

Third, I don’t know how male/male or female/female doesn’t “naturally” work. It works for gay and bisexual people. Granted, one might find some sexual activities dislikeable, as a matter of personal taste, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Many things occur in nature, yet some people don’t find them very appealing. That’s not to say they’re unnatural or wrong.

Fourth, who says that evolution should be obeyed, anyway (assuming there was such thing as “unnatural”)?


I’m not going to challenge that contention, but instead argue that there’s no evidence of such occurrence. If the Bible says so, it’s merely a claim written by people who lived thousands of years ago.

I accept that that’s what the Bible says according to you. Others have other opinions. I’m not going to take sides on that, as it’s not relevant to my stance.

Based on what you explained, I’d say that your Biblical God is less evil than the BG of rhutchin, but it’s still pretty bad. Seriously, he throws people into a lake of fire!

I have no argument with that. I was merely noting that the harshest take on your views would seem to come from a Christian perspective (atheists and agnostics may disagree with you, but that’s it, as far as I could tell).

I’m not so familiar, either, though I know enough to know it claims that the Qurangod existed, and that Jesus was a prophet (not God).

But that was not my point. My point was that many books can make many claims. I can claim that my posts are Goddess-inspired, for that matter. That, of course, does not mean they are. A similar argument can be used against unsubstantiated claims made in the Bible, the Quran, etc.

Could you elaborate, please?
If you don’t agree with my arguments, I’d like to know if you had any counter arguments that I could address.

Frankly, I think that that is a very strong statement against God, and sorry, but I’m afraid your response does nothing to address it.

I mean, you express your disapproval of my argument; I get that. However, you do not make any attempt to refute it.

And furthermore, it would not render a person guiltless for any and all their actions, no matter what they might be. If, say, A beats B up, then A is responsible. There is no reason to think that A did not understand or was incapable of understanding that he was beating B.

On the other hand, I will insist: there is no evidence suggesting the existence of Biblegod, and if it were, I would be incapable of understanding it. I wouldn’t choose to be thrown into a lake of fire if I had an alternative. But my conclusion is that there is no such lake. If the lake existed and my intellect were not adequate for understanding the evidence that would prove me wrong, that would be the fault of my creator.

But I can make an even more obvious argument, if you prefer:

There’s no evidence suggesting that Biblegod exists. If you argue that there is (but I’d like to know why ), I will reply that those who never heard about the Bible were incapable of knowing about it. Yet, they would be thrown into the lake of fire, would they not?

I meant what rhutchin believes to be eternal punishment; that is, the second kind you mention.

As for whether it’s Biblical teaching, etc., I will not take sides. I will say it’s the teaching of the Bible according to rhutchin and others, but it is not the teaching of the Bible according to you and others, and that’s all I know about it.

However, part of your argument seems to be mistaken. You claim that the eternal fire, etc., is a church denomination teaching lies to those whom they’re paid to brainwash. Nevertheless, it is clear that many of the people teaching those claims (to their own children, for instance), actually believe them.

Frankly, I do not see much difference between different religions (broadly speaking, and including different types of Christianity) in that regard. Some teachers are crooks, but many – my guess would be most – are not. But that doesn’t change the fact that their teachings are wrong.


I will contend that you cannot prove that they were all homosexuals, as you cannot prove that the event ever happened. If you argue that you can prove that the Bible claims it happen, I have no reason to object to that, as it is inconsequential to my line of argument. Hence, for the sake of the argument, I would assume that they were all homosexuals.

Then, I would insist that the actions of God amounted to mass-murder. It’s not the destruction of evil we’re talking about, but the destruction of many people, apparently because of their sexuality. That is an evil action.

Regarding the abnormality argument, I would refer you to my previous points, but even if it were “unnatural”, why should people be massacred? No one gets hurt, so I don’t see the reason.

That aside, you seem to excuse and even approve of God’s actions, because He was “destroying evil”. Do you think gay people should be killed, then? After all, if that’s the destruction of evil, that’s good, is it not? And if not, then why were God’s actions right?
Why homosexuality should be punished in Sodom and Gomorrah, but not in, say, Amsterdam?

If it is impossible for a person to avoid it, it cannot be argued that they’ve been given a fair chance: God created humans of a nature that would inevitably lead to sin.
Furthermore, is lack of belief in Biblegod, a sin?
Because that is not a choice.
And further, as pointed out previously in the thread several times, many of those “sinners” would be unaware that their actions would be punished by death. They were not informed that those actions were sins. Yet, BG would execute them, anyway.


Finally, I’d want to readdress the issue of the punishment for homosexuality: you consider homosexuality to be evil, and you argued that the destruction of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was the destruction of evil. My questions are:

Would you support a law that would criminalize homosexuality?
If so, what should the punishment be, in your view, any why?
If not, why not? Should “evil” not be destroyed?

Johnny Skeptic

But didn't Adam and Eve have one without the other before they ate the forbidden fruit? If Adam and Eve had never sinned, which must have been God's desire, and if they never had children, and were the only two people that ever lived, they would not have had a balanced equation. In such a case, what in the world would they have had to talk about in a perfect world with no good days to compare against bad days?

That is false. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, by genetics or by some other means, God ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time by passing down a sinful nature to all successive generations. Otherwise, some people would be perfect and would not need to become saved.

Animals never sinned. Why does God injure and kill some of them with hurricanes, and allow some of them to starve to death?

Please reply to my posts #636, #637, #640, and #641.

Berggy

Wouldnt need to? According to who's view-point? Thats the key. Many people say that just because we have these things in this world and that God either didnt directly intervene to stop it or create a world where it would be impossible to have such a thing, that God is evil and immoral. Your equating negative things to = God being Evil, while the difference is that "evil" is defined by morality, of right and wrong on actions in a given situation.

I would think the word your looking for is calamity, not evil.

Yes, but they deliberately made people with cancer genes while God never did so. There is a difference.

It doesnt matter if you know or not, you would still bring them into this world and therefore, according to your own argument, you would be responsible for everything that they either caused or suffered.

Furthermore, I think the core of the issue is something that hasnt been discussed yet. Its Free Will, the ability to choose to your own way, to do your own thing, regardless of the consequences.

If you wish to put blame on God, then you cannot ignore the opposite side. Human beings choose to live in the places that they live and ive an earthquake, tornado or hurricane happens to hit that area, then that would mean that the human beings are responsible, because regardless if they knew it was coming or not, they "chose" to live in that place. Even if they were ignorant, part of the blame would reside on them,

I think your definition of evil is the problem. Evil, naturally, is the opposite of Good and therefore, since the Bible states that the Law is Holy, Just and Good according to Romans 7:12 and that all God's Laws are righteousness as stated by Psalms 119:171-172; all this together means that being Lawful is Good and Righteous and that is how God is righteous, they follow their own Laws. Therefore, to be righteous is to be lawful and to be good is to be lawful, which would be in any case. Then to be "evil", the opposite of Good, is to be un-lawful and unrighteous.

You dont call a shark "evil" because he feeds on fish, do you? No, of course, not. He is going accordingly to the laws of nature. He must feed, he must sustain himself, he must live, but why would you call a shark evil if he attacks a human being? Its not fair to do so, because that shark is acting accordingly to the laws death and life. In order to live, an organism must die.

Therefore, you can easily see on how your application of "evil" is not applicable to what we are talking about. Just because you either have the ability to feel pain and/or to feel sad or unhappy or do feels those things at a given time doesnt mean that God is "evil" as you define them as. They are "lawful".

Your saying that just because people "have" multiple interpretations of the scriptures that it invalidates the Bible's claim that there is no personal interpretation of what it states. Thats not true. I think your mis-understanding the issue. The Bible explicily states that it says what it says and it doesnt need nor require a human being's interpretation when regarding its meaning and statements.

However, no where in the Bible will you find any indication that human beings are incapable of either trying or making their own personal interpretations, there is a difference.

I beg to differ. If you were to analyze the differences of what the Bible states concerning Christ as compared to what either The Roman Catholic Church and/or the church denominations, then you would see for certain why I say they are Judeo-Christians and not Christians according to the Biblical standard.

I never said thought crimes or anything that could be classified as such.

In addition, as I stated previously in this response, what happens in this world that allows you to feel pain or suffering and whatnot is natural, it not evil. Your argument is circuler, for it would inevitable lead to the conclusion that God should not have allowed human beings to be able to either feel pain, sadness or anytthing of negative emotion and therefore, why create them at all? You cannot have a positive equation without including its negative aspect - thats a natural law.

Your asking for something because you dont want to feel something or see something, but that doesnt change the fact that society must see the opposite side of what you want, else you could not appreciate the positive side. You need a balance to distinquish what is good and what is evil, what is lawful and what is un-lawful, what is righteous and what is un-rightoues.

1a.You state, basically, that suffering = pain, death, disease and therefore = evil.

1b.I state that pain, death, disease = things that cause injury, but that evil = un-lawfulness, unrighteousness.

Therefore, accordingly, then God is not Evil, they are Lawful and therefore Good.

I think I made a mistake. Whenever I hear suffering, I automatically think of something thats completely needless, like in an example that a man takes a woman, beats her and then rapes her and then sticks a gun to her head and pulls the trigger.

I consider that needless suffering because that type of suffering is against God's Laws. However, natural things that happen in the natural world, aside from needless suffering as stated by my example, which is immoral and unlawful, according to the Bible, then yes, that "suffering" has always existed.

However, its not in the same catagory, really. Suffering caused by being un-lawful is not the same as that which is caused by law, "IF" it happens to you. Suffering has been used to be something thats so terribly bad that is practically un-imaginable, but thats not the case. The word "suffers" just doesnt mean that much in a negative way. It really depends on the context of the situation.

Therefore, I apologize for the confusion. I mean the suffering in what I explained, not in the generalized way it came out before.

I beg to differ. If the Bible "doesnt" contradict science, as we know it. With the laws of the universe, with how the world and universe works, "AT ALL", then that lends incredible amounts of credibility to the Bible being divinely inspired.

I guess it might be pointless, but Im going to point it out to you anyways. Its the preachers of the church demoninations that say that the BIble is a spiritual book, that its based entirely on blind faith and that its not a book to be taken literally. I call them liars and I labor to prove that they are liars, according to the Bible.

However, when in regards to the selection of the Bible. I say that the version that is canonized with books that dont contradict each other, but are consistant in their message, attitude and beliefs is the Bible that is right one.

1.Man has penis, woman has vagina. Penis + Vagina = "natural" sexual intercourse which = "natural" reproduction.

Anything else aside from that is an abberations of nature. It may happen, but that doesnt mean its supposed to or that is the general way of things.

The difference between animals and humans is that humans are not animals. Im not an evolutionist and I contend that the Bible speaks against evolution as well.

Just because you see this happen in the animal kingdom doesnt mean that its lawful and/or moral for humans to engage in it as well. For there is no Law stated or written within the Bible that says that animals will not/can not do such a thing, but there "ARE" laws written in the Bible that state that men and women are not to have homosexual relations and/or sleep with animals. This alone puts humans on a level higher than animals, for human beings must make a descision on whether or not to engage in such activities, no matter how much their lust pulls at them.

It doesnt work because male/male and female/female cant have children, by sexual reproduction, the way they they naturally do with male/female. I dont care if they can adopt a child, that makes no difference. The contention is that they are doing something for which its not natural to do; engaging in their lust for something contrary to the way things should be.

If you consider that wrong, well, thats your opinion, but that doesnt change the fact that male + female goes together and Male + male doesnt.

Your not going to challenge the contention, but just "say" that there is no evidence for it? How conveniant for you. It can easily be proven, from the Bible, that it happened the way its described and it wouldnt contradict science.

But hey, lets not go into that right? Evidence + contradictory "nay-saying" just doesnt work eh?

Your definition of evil not is not applicable to this situation because evil = unlawfullness and unrighteousness, which = God's Law.

I have read the arguments made that there is supposedly no solid evidence that the Gods of the Bible existed and those arguments were made by stating that they have never physically seen that God.

I say those arguements are not applicable because God is not required to show themselves physically for there to be evidence that they exist.

You have specifically stated that your counter to my argument would be that God made you "incapable" of understanding what I understand to be the evidence of God existing. Therefore, you are putting yourself, deliberately, into a position of ignorance.

Have you sat down and studied the Bible the way a college student would study math? I would wager you have not, but even aside from that, I would be completely willing to bet that you never considered doing so.

The evidence is contained within the Bible. Have you studied the Bible accordingly, to see if it actually predicts certain things within the world in the past and present and future, to see if those things are so?

Apparently, you have not.

This goes into an entirely difference subject, which has everything to do with what is called 'The Great Commission" at the end of the gospel accounts of teaching the gospel to others.

Even more so, I would say that those people who havent heard of the Bible and/or God's Laws in their specifics, I would say that they have the Law, naturally, as stated by Romans 2:13-14. Therefore, they are still accountable for things that they know are wrong. Stealing, Murdering, Raping, slavery, kidnapping...stuff like that. They still know and they still have it.

If I can prove that one they were teaching is not what the Bible teaches, they they are lieing, whethor knowingly or unknowingly. In addition, those same people that listen to them are merely just content to play church, which is a mis-nomer in itself, and say "love you Jesus", but they never sit down and study like the Bible commands them to do.

If you dont understand, then simply study Judaism more closely and then study the Bible and compare the differences, especially with it concerns God and God's Law, as evident that Judaism uses the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism for its Laws and what should be done as regards to what is specifically written within the Law and the Prophets itself.

If you consider execution, as a form of punishment for unlawfullness, murder, then I can easily see on how you would also say that the execution of a murderer would be murder, even though its just punishment.

Even more so, those people "chose" to be homosexual. They had lusts, they chose to act on them and therefore committed unlawful acts.

Its not just having to do with people getting physically hurt. Its also that promoting homosexuality as being okay and normal is the promoting of a mentality that is unlawful. When a male looks a female "he knows" that the female is what is the right choice to make when it comes to sexuality. Now, whether or not he wants to is a different matter. When a man looks at another man and starts thinking about sexual relations with that person and then acts on them, he has "chosen" to indulge unlawful lust and therefore, is doing something that he knows is not natural.

You "cannot" and I repeat, you "CANNOT" ignore the fact that male + female = natural. The parts of the two go together and fit, with things designed and made for specific things. Vagina is made for penile penetration while the Anus is for excrement or the disposal of waste.

Therefore, case closed.

Wrong. This is the key - 1 Corinthians 10:13

1 Corinthians 10:13: There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able; but will with temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

People are tempted to do what? Sin, and sin is the violation of God's Law. Therefore, God will "NEVER" allow someone to be tempted above what they are able to bear, therefore, when people comitt sins, they are committing them on their own. God did NOTHING to cause them to sin.

Even more so, you dont know James 1:13.

James 1:13: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man

The context is still sin, as explained by the next verses. Therefore, you put these two together and you have conclusive, "INDISPUTABLE" proof that God never tempts someone to break God's Law or to sin.

Yes, I know, you will bring up passages concerning other instances in the Bible, but one thing at a time. I can prove those are not what you think as well.

Read Leviticus 20:13 and you have my answer.

rhutchin

The rule is this: A person cannot get into heaven if the person has sinned.

It’s nice that people should know this, but if djrafikie chooses not to tell them, they might not know.

It’s God’s rule. A person cannot get into heaven if the person has sinned. Sounds pretty exclusive and it is. That is why Christians spend a lot of money and resources telling others about Christ.

OK. Let’s make it, “The problem comes when djrafikie decides that she will not tell people what is happening so that they may not know what sin is much less what it means and what they can do about it.”

God is very reasonable and sensible.

All parents should do as you do. What about the parent who does not follow your example? The child suffers for that which they know nothing about.

I agree.

OK, Dudette. Also, I’ll bite – if I do not have it right, what is accurate?


If you knew something, you would have said something. Your silence suggests that you don’t know. So, what do you know about sin and salvation? Has this minister friend of yours given you the straight scoop?

Anyone can sin, innocent or not. I think people who get scammed should scream bloody murder. Unfortunately, by the time people figure out that they have been scammed, it’s often too late.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? They knew the command and still ate the fruit. Satan must be a good scam artist.


Nonetheless, we both know that neither you nor I can forgive people for their sin against God. That transaction is between the person and God. We do know that, don’t we??

Must have made her an easy mark.

Yep. Parents who do not tell their children about Christ are pretty evil.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Message to rhutchin: You do not believe that God has committed numerous atrocities against mankind. Will you please give us your definition of the word "atrocity" and a few examples of what you believe are atrocities?

A web definition for the word "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane."

The Merriam-Wester's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as "1: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel: BARBARIC

2: APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a: utterly revolting: ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b: of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>"

Johnny: Is it your position that none of God's actions and allowances fit those definitions? Let’s discuss some examples of what I, and millions of other people, consider to be some of God’s atrocities.

1 - God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11.

2 - God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5.

3 - God provides information to some people who reject it, and deliberately withholds it from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it, with no apparent benefit for himself or anyone else. In such cases, those people reject God out of ignorance, not out of intent, and God withholds information out in intent, not out of ignorance. Under our legal system, a man can be punished for breaking a law that he is not aware of, but no man can (or should) be sentenced to life in prison or death for breaking a law that he is not aware of. Millions of people are not certain whether or not at least one being exists who can instantly create a planet. It is not possible for a man to reject a God unless he believes that he exists. If the God of the Bible exists, the majority of the people in the world are not aware of it. If God has the power to do that, he could easily show up and demonstrate to everyone that he can do it. Logically, spiritual AND tangible evidence are much more convincing than spiritual evidence alone. That is just plain old common sense. Many people would become Christians if God provided them with additional tangible evidence. I am not aware of any skeptic in the world who would not like to be 100% certain whether or not there is at least one being in the universe who is able to instantly create planets.

It is a question of how badly God wants people to go to heaven and not to hell.

4 - Consider the following Scriptures:

Numbers 31:1-4 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian. Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

13-18 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

5 - Even though the Bible says that killing people is wrong, God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout followers. God killed all of the firstborn males in Egypt. God killed children at Sodom and Gomorrah.

6 - God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5.

7 - One million people died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine. James 2:14-22 say "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"

James said that if you have food and refuse to feed a hungry person that you are vain, and that your faith is dead. Obviously, God is vain, and he is a hypocrite. He tells Christians that if they refuse to feed hungry people that they are vain and that their faith is dead, but has allowed millions of people, including millions of people, including millions of Christians, to die slow, painful deaths from starvation. If God does not want to feed hungry people himself, he most certainly would not have told Christians to feed hungry people. If feeding people is a necessary and worthy goal, then surely it is a good thing for humans AND for God. Matthew 15:32-38 say “Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.” Since God allowed one million people to die of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine alone, most of whom were Christians, it is a virtual given that those Scriptures are not true.

8 - Today, tangible benefits are frequently distributed to people who are not in greatest need, including to some evil people who never become Christians, and they are frequently withheld from people who are in greatest need, including some of God’s most devout and faithful followers. It is if God who distributes tangible benefits, he frequently does so without any regards for a person’s worldview or needs.

9 - If God sometimes heals people who have physical problems, he always refuses to give amputees new limbs, at least as far as we know. This means that God discriminates against amputees.

If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to love him. Is it your position that telling lies is worse than the evidence that I have presented? If God is not obligated to keep his own rules, which means that it is acceptable for him to be a hypocrite, then he is not obligated to tell the truth. No person who has morals and principles is able to love the God of the Bible.

You asked me to give you my definition of what a decent person is. My definition of a decent person is a person who knows the difference between right and wrong without having to read the Bible, and knows that God is immoral according to his own standards. If you say that skeptics do not have absolute morals, I will tell you than Christians don’t either, and that God doesn’t either. Christians have changed their morals values for centuries, i.e regarding slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women. The New Testament has some moral standards that are dramatically different from the moral standards in the Old Testament.

If any being other than the God of the Bible acted like God sometimes acts, you would never be able to love him, so you obviously do not have a defensible moral position.

EarlOfLade

There is of course an enormous problem with that statement. The bible has been shown to be incorrect about so much of it's contents, that no sane person would ever consider its contents to be the truth.

Johnny Skeptic

But you do not have a clue what "the Bible" is. What I mean is that since you do not have a clue which writings originally comprised the Bible, you do not have any way of knowing what the Bible is. The correct definition of "the Bible" is the original writings that comprised the Bible, not the copies of copies of ancient manuscripts that we have today. Not only that, but there is a lot of proof that the copies of copies of manuscripts that we have today contain errors, not including the probabilty of thousands of unknown errors.

rhutchin

There is more. Through the law, God has told us the basis on which we will be judged and how He views our actions. In Leviticus 20:13, God tells us that homosexuality is a sin and that sin condemns a person to death before God. A person who does such things shall not enter into heaven.

It is also true that God commanded that Israel maintain a system of laws and punishments that would teach people about sin. The death penalty was prescribed for many cases of sexual immorality among which was homosexuality.

Nonetheless, God instituted a judicial system to protect the innocent (a person could not be convicted unless there were at least 2 and sometimes 3 independent witnesses). In the NT, the judicial system described in Matt 18 provides for a person to turn away from the evil that he is doing and thereby escape punishment.

Punishing sin is proper. Even those who have nothing to do with God will punish those who steal, murder, etc. The basic issue here is whether sexual immorality is a sin. Why should we lie to people and say that it is not? Why give people the impression that a person can engage in all sorts of sexual activities and still enter heaven? The sexually immoral will not enter heaven. Let's not fudge on the truth.

JPD

Without first of all assuming that it is the truth! And assuming that it is because it says so. Right there! Fudge ye not! Let's all get jumped up and excited by what we believe and proclaim that everyone should live this way! After all its the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Silly silly Biblegod for creating some people this way - perhaps making some people gay was a quick fix when he reminded himself of the limited capacity of heaven and didn't have a space in his diary to get the blueprints out.

...and those other gay animals too - they're doing it thinking they're annoying him but in actual fact they're helping him out.