Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God by logical deduction?

[jimvansage]

It is not just that Jesus is the/a son of God, but that He is the Divine Son of God: that He possesses both a human nature and a God nature
Before anyone objects that that is an obsurdity, a crude analogy would be a desk and a chair. Both have their own nature or qualities, but a desk-chair has qualities of both.

myth-one

The abusive boyfriend next door decides its morally right to beat up his girlfriend.
I object that such is not morally right.
His decision does not make violence against helpless victims objectively morally right and my decision does not make it objectively morally wrong - if it is both right and wrong it is subjective; if it is either right or wrong it is objective regardless of personal beliefs.

But if God appeared to you, you would not have a choice but to believe in Him.
Or it's possible that He would knock on your door, claim to be God, and you would say that you don't believe Him.

The very nature of a spirit is eternal
God is Spirit (John 4:24) and God is eternal.
To extinguish a spirit would be to deny his nature.
It would be like asking gravity to work in reverse.

The God of the Bible offers an opportunity
not only to be fellow-workers with Him (1 Cor. 3:9) and declare His glory
but to be a friend and brother
despite our shortcomings

You say "There no excuse for it. The only reason he could have possibly done it is because he wanted to do it. And that to me means that he's mentally ill"

If a mother sees her child on a railroad track, and is able to remove the child from harm's way at the cost of her own life, is she mentally ill? Or is it love that motivates her? Are you saying love is a mental illness?

Don't lose sight of the fact that the Bible speaks of God as the Father.
Are our fathers moral monsters for correcting us when we lie, play with matches, or do objectionable and dangerous things?

You argue the stories are false one minute, then assume they are true to cast doubt on them depending on how it suits your purposes.

You say something to the effect of "If the Bible is true, then God thought His system would work, but it didn't, so He sent Jesus" Then you object to the time period when He sent Jesus. Then, when I try to harmonize the Scriptures, THAT is when you dismiss the whole thing as fables.
If you're going to dismiss the whole account as fables (which got some things right), you have to account for all of what is said on a subject.

Killing versus murder - our military kills, murderers commit murder
there is a distinction
The commandment should read "Thou shalt do no murder" rather than "thou shalt not kill"
because they had to kill animals for meat and sacrifices
they had a civil death penalty for murderers who had taken precious human life and as punishment for other sins.
Now there is no contradiction in "Thou shalt not murder" and "stone murderers as punishment for their wicked deeds", but when left without a contradiction, you could always fall back on "well, it's all just fables anyway IMHO"

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 51:

It is not just that Jesus is the/a son of God, but that He is the Divine Son of God: that He possesses both a human nature and a God nature

So it is claimed with no more confirmation than someone has a book they're just so proud about.

Before anyone objects that that is an obsurdity, a crude analogy would be a desk and a chair. Both have their own nature or qualities, but a desk-chair has qualities of both.

I'm just not getting a lot of folks telling me how I should act or think based on a desk or chair getting upset.

We can present analogies to support nigh on any scenario we wish to dream up. What we can't do is show this Jesus fellow is any more the son of God than I can show I'm the man in the moon.

[Divine Insight]

It is not just that Jesus is the/a son of God, but that He is the Divine Son of God: that He possesses both a human nature and a God nature
Before anyone objects that that is an obsurdity, a crude analogy would be a desk and a chair. Both have their own nature or qualities, but a desk-chair has qualities of both.

I see many paradoxes with Jesus supposedly having had "divine knowledge", and especially being God.

For example, if Jesus was "God", then clearly he would not "sin" nor would he even be inclined to "sin". For it is said that God can't even look upon sin. Besides, why would God want to go against his own desires?

If God hates "sin", and sin is nothing more than that which God hates, why would Jesus even be "tempted" by sin. Yet these fables have Jesus supposedly being tempted and withstanding that temptation.

How could God be "tempted" to do what he hates?

Also consider the following:

Mark.1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

"Well pleased"?

Why should God be well-pleased with Jesus if Jesus was God? This implies that Jesus might have actually turned out not to please God.

Mark 1:11 indicates that if we are to give these fables any credence at all Jesus could only be seen as a "demigod" entirely separate and apart from God in whom God was well-pleased.

But Jesus can't be a demigod, because that creates a polytheist religion like the Greek fables of Zeus.

So Christianity is stuck with an oxymoron they can't deal with. For them Jesus must be 100% God, but the Christian fables can't be used to support that ideal.

So it's a failed mythology. Failure by blatant contradiction.

But if God appeared to you, you would not have a choice but to believe in Him.
Or it's possible that He would knock on your door, claim to be God, and you would say that you don't believe Him.

If anyone came to me and proclaimed that they are "God" I most certainly would question them about it. Even if I actually believed that they are a God I see nothing wrong with asking them to show evidence for their claim. After all, I live in a world where I'm quite used to being lied to, especially about things like Gods and religions, and any truly omniscient being should be fully aware of that and understand it.

So I would expect this "God" to demonstrate to me that he truely is God, and not start screaming at me, "Thou shalt not tempt the LORD they GOD!".

In fact, any indication of violent reactions, immaturity, or anything less that complete compassionate understanding would indicate to me that what I have before me is more likely to be a demon than a God.

Now, let's suppose that this being that knocked at my door, truly is benevolent and sincere and responses to my concerns intelligently and maturely. Should I then opening accept that I'm dealing with a God?

Not really. This could simply be a highly evolved and advanced lifeform who simply appears to me to have "God-like" powers.

When I stop and think about it, it would be extremely difficult for a God to truly prove that he is God. All he could ever truly prove is that he's far more powerful and magical than I am used to experiencing.

~~~~

In any case, whether this being at my door is a God or just an all-powerful alien, there still things that I would request of it and expect of it.

1. I would expect it to be benevolent. (especially if it's claiming to be "God")

2. I would ask it what it wants from me.

After all that's a valid question in either way.

Moreover, it if claimed to be God and wanted me to "confess my sins" I'd confess that I've done everything I've ever done. If it wants me to show sincere "repentance" for the stupid things I've done in my life, I would question it's omniscience. Because if it truly is omniscient it would already know that I'm sincerely sorry for the stupid things I've done in this life. (none of them being done intentionally with evil intent).

My 'sins' are nothing more than genuine honest failings of perfection. And a truly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would already know this, so if a God were charging me with these things, or even asking me to confess them or repent for them he would only be displaying to me he complete lack of omniscience.

The very concept of a supposedly omniscient God who would have a problem with me is itself an oxymoron.

So I would expect any real God who shows up at my door to embrace me with open arms and fully understand already though his omniscience that I am more than worthy of his love just as I am.

The Christian picture of a judgmental God who is accusing me of failing to repent my sins, can only be a Christian fabrication. It simply doesn't represent truth.

An omniscient God would know better.

The God of the Bible offers an opportunity
not only to be fellow-workers with Him (1 Cor. 3:9) and declare His glory
but to be a friend and brother
despite our shortcomings

If we have "shortcomings" they can only be the fault of our designer.

How did these religions go from being about Good versus Evil to being about "shortcomings" due to the fact that we are imperfect?

If they are about Good and Evil, I will confess that I'm a Good person.

If they are about "shortcomings" I will ask God why he created us with shortcomings in the first place? Also why didn't he see to it that we are all provided with truly benevolent, intelligent, and wise mentors?

He sticks us in an dog-eat-dog world, then plays hide-and-seek and is going to blame us for not being "Perfect"?

What does that have to do with choosing between good and evil?

Christianity is a train-wrecked mythology that is completely off the tracks.

It went from supposedly being about sin, to now blaming everyone for having been created with shortcomings?



When are people going to see the complete failure of these ancient myths?

You say "There no excuse for it. The only reason he could have possibly done it is because he wanted to do it. And that to me means that he's mentally ill"

If a mother sees her child on a railroad track, and is able to remove the child from harm's way at the cost of her own life, is she mentally ill? Or is it love that motivates her? Are you saying love is a mental illness?

I'm saying that the mother would be mentally ill if she were the one built the train and placed her child in the middle of tracks in the first place.

You're analogy of a human mortal mother attempting to save her child from things she can have no responsibility for does not correctly describe the situation of a God who created EVERYTHING.

All you do with those kinds of analogies is suggest that God is as helpless as a mortal woman. And that there are things that are completely out of God's control.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the Bible speaks of God as the Father.
Are our fathers moral monsters for correcting us when we lie, play with matches, or do objectionable and dangerous things?

Some mortal human fathers are monsters.

I would personally suggest that a GOOD mortal father would never use violent punishments as a means of attempting to teach a child anything. I would hold that such a mindset and strategy is totally ignorant and basically ineffective anyway. All that does is teach the the child that the father thinks that violence is a solution to problems.

But still you're comparing God with a mortal father. Mortal fathers can't possibly understand what's in the hearts or minds of their children. Mortal fathers also lack wisdom, time, and patience to truly mentor their children efficiently.

An all-powerful God would have none of these frail failings of mortal fathers.

So to even suggest that the behavior of mortal fathers "Justifies" the behavior of an imaginary God is absurd.

Moreover, WHERE do you think fathers get the idea that violent punishments are a solution to anything? They no doubt get it from these ancient fables that some God supposedly does this.

After all, if you are taught that God uses violence and harsh punishments as his means of "teaching people lessons", then of course you're going to feel that this is the correct way to deal with these things.

In fact, Jim, this is precisely why I reject these kinds of religions so passionately.

These religions proclaim that our "Divine Creator" deals with problems using ignorant violent punishments, and that instills in society that this must then be proper way to deal with things.

Christianity is the absolute worst at this. It depicts a God who can't even forgive people of their supposed "sins" unless some innocent person has been nailed to a pole to pay for their sins in the first place.

What?

Violence solves the problem and pays for sins?

This is precisely the OPPOSITE of what I would expect from a truly divine being.

Christianity is an extreme oxymoron to benevolence and wisdom.

It truly is the epitome of ignorance, IMHO.

You argue the stories are false one minute, then assume they are true to cast doubt on them depending on how it suits your purposes.

Absolutely.

It's my claim that these are indeed superstitious rumors.

So I look at them as probably containing *some truth*, but mostly false superstitions.

I point out the parts that have a reasonable possibility of potentially being based on something that might be truthful, and I point out the parts that are most like superstitions.

That's the very nature of what is done when you're examining something as potentially being exaggerated superstitions.

I also point out where the fables clearly contradict themselves. We have Mark and John proclaiming that to merely not believe in Jesus is reason for damnation, but then we have Jesus proclaiming on the Cross "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"

So which is it?

Does God condemn everyone who fails to believe in Jesus?

Or does God forgive those who don't believe because they know not what they do?

You can't have the cake and eat it too. These stories are riddled with contradictions like this all the way through.

You say something to the effect of "If the Bible is true, then God thought His system would work, but it didn't, so He sent Jesus" Then you object to the time period when He sent Jesus. Then, when I try to harmonize the Scriptures, THAT is when you dismiss the whole thing as fables.
If you're going to dismiss the whole account as fables (which got some things right), you have to account for all of what is said on a subject.

No I don't.

I'm saying that most of it is nothing more than exaggerated rumors, or even intentional lies created by religious zealots.

Moreover, I'm saying that these fables are clearly NOT the word of any God and that Jesus clearly wasn't God. And therefore I have absolutely no reason to even begin to try to hold the whole account up as having been "preserved" by God.

Only the Christians are stuck with that problem. I just point out how impossible that problem truly is.

It can't be done. These fables cannot be held up as being consistent, and that is the point I'm making when I say "IF God were actually like that, then,... this contradiction follows".

That's my point. IF these stories are true, then they contradict the very nature of what they claim God is.

Therefore they can't be true.

That's my ultimately conclusion. They can't be true.

So the "IF they are true" is just a rhetorical "IF", I'm not actually suggesting that they "might actually somehow be true".

It's kind of like saying "IF elephants had wings they could fly, but since elephants don't have wings the truth is that they can't fly"

Am I suggesting by this that elephants might actually have wings?

No I'm not.

And it's the same way with the Bible. When I say, "If it were true it would lead to a contradiction", I am not suggesting that it might be true.

Killing versus murder - our military kills, murderers commit murder
there is a distinction
The commandment should read "Thou shalt do no murder" rather than "thou shalt not kill"
because they had to kill animals for meat and sacrifices
they had a civil death penalty for murderers who had taken precious human life and as punishment for other sins.
Now there is no contradiction in "Thou shalt not murder" and "stone murderers as punishment for their wicked deeds", but when left without a contradiction, you could always fall back on "well, it's all just fables anyway IMHO"

I don't need to fall back on "well, it's all just fables anyway".

All I need to do is point out that these fables specifically sat, "Thou shalt not kill".

They don't say "Thou shalt not murder".

So if you'd like to change that biblical ERROR you'll have to make up your own religion and rewrite the ten commandments.

If you're going to change what the fables actually say then are you even talking about them at all?

You're arguing for a totally imaginary religious doctrine that doesn't even exist.

I could write a Biblical Canon that would make sense too!

But it wouldn't be anywhere near the same as the Christian Bible.

All you're suggesting is that the biblical God wasn't as wise as you when he wrote the ten commandments. Otherwise he would have written, "Thou shalt not murder".

[jimvansage]

"So it's a failed mythology. Failure by blatant contradiction..."

You can't write on a desk-chair because you can't write on a chair!
...unless your talking about the desk portion of the desk-chair
Jesus couldn't do X b/c Jesus was God - but He was also man according to the Scriptures
You can't force a contradiction is His supposed humanity doesn'y behave godly, or His divinity does not behave very humanly...

"When I stop and think about it, it would be extremely difficult for a God to truly prove that he is God. All he could ever truly prove is that he's far more powerful and magical than I am used to experiencing"

So you can't demand that God appear to you one time: you may start to doubt what you witnessed or your own sanity. But if God gave man something concrete and objective whereby we could determine His existence (revelation in nature and His written Word) and know Him by that, then that removes the possibility of doubt and still gives one a choice. Not that He couldn't appear to everyone, or even only appear to everyone who will choose to believe Him, but objectively set the evidence available for all to examine regardless of their ultimate decision; for this purpose if nothing else the righteous and the wicked would have to coexist to some extent.

"1. I would expect it to be benevolent. (especially if it's claiming to be "God")
2. I would ask it what it wants from me"

"Moreover, it if claimed to be God and wanted me to "confess my sins" I'd confess that I've done everything I've ever done. If it wants me to show sincere "repentance" for the stupid things I've done in my life, I would question it's omniscience. Because if it truly is omniscient it would already know that I'm sincerely sorry for the stupid things I've done in this life. (none of them being done intentionally with evil intent)"
My 'sins' are nothing more than genuine honest failings of perfection. And a truly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would already know this, so if a God were charging me with these things, or even asking me to confess them or repent for them he would only be displaying to me he complete lack of omniscience.
The very concept of a supposedly omniscient God who would have a problem with me is itself an oxymoron"

-The purpose of these acts would not necessarily be for God to gain knowledge, but for our own obedience and submission to His will (and repenting to do good works would even be a good example for others to follow (1 Cor. 11:1))

"So I would expect any real God who shows up at my door to embrace me with open arms and fully understand already though his omniscience that I am more than worthy of his love just as I am
The Christian picture of a judgmental God who is accusing me of failing to repent my sins, can only be a Christian fabrication. It simply doesn't represent truth.
An omniscient God would know better"
-Even imperfect non-omniscient beings are not expected to do this. You don't say "oh, I know you murdered someone, but don't feel bad about it, where not going to deny you of your right to freedom and you keep on doing what you do best"
Don't expect out of God what no human being in his right mind would do.
More to follow...

"If we have "shortcomings" they can only be the fault of our designer.
How did these religions go from being about Good versus Evil to being about "shortcomings" due to the fact that we are imperfect?"
If they are about "shortcomings" I will ask God why he created us with shortcomings in the first place?"

My dog decides to chase an airplane, but gets hit by a car in the process.
Whose fault is it really?

"Also why didn't he see to it that we are all provided with truly benevolent, intelligent, and wise mentors?
He sticks us in an dog-eat-dog world, then plays hide-and-seek and is going to blame us for not being "Perfect"?"

Whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God or some other document, or if right and wrong can be determined by our own reason, we would not be without some form of guidance.

"What does that have to do with choosing between good and evil?
Christianity is a train-wrecked mythology that is completely off the tracks.
It went from supposedly being about sin, to now blaming everyone for having been created with shortcomings?"

-You're assuming He created us with shortcoming - our only "shortcoming" is the ability to chose to go against the will of the Creator of the universe when we could just as easily choose to do His will

"I'm saying that the mother would be mentally ill if she were the one built the train and placed her child in the middle of tracks in the first place"
-the difference is did the mother push the child on the tracks or did the child wander onto the tracks (despite warnings and proper instruction by the mother)
Whether you accept the God of the Bible or not, you can't say He didn't attempt instruct us properly because He gave us the Bible. You tie yourself in knots denying the Bible, then accusing God of not doing what He should have done (revealing Himself and His will in the Bible).

"You're analogy of a human mortal mother attempting to save her child from things she can have no responsibility for does not correctly describe the situation of a God who created EVERYTHING.
All you do with those kinds of analogies is suggest that God is as helpless as a mortal woman. And that there are things that are completely out of God's control"
-God chooses not to control our will - though He could, then anyone who hated God would be forced to serve Him for all eternity - is that fair and right?
And what if it's not punishment so much as deprivation? Not hellfire and brimstone literally, but an existence devoid of everything that makes life worth living? An eternal timeout as it were.

"So to even suggest that the behavior of mortal fathers "Justifies" the behavior of an [ASSUMED TO BE - jvs] imaginary God is absurd"
"Violence solves the problem and pays for sins?" no, sacrifice does, love does

"I also point out where the fables clearly contradict themselves. We have Mark and John proclaiming that to merely not believe in Jesus is reason for damnation, but then we have Jesus proclaiming on the Cross "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"
So which is it?
Does God condemn everyone who fails to believe in Jesus?
Or does God forgive those who don't believe because they know not what they do?"

-The alleged contradictions get weaker and weaker. A family might forgive the individual who murdered their son, but a pardon from the authorities takes a process of paperwork and procedure. God the Father is simply acting as both parties.

"That's my point. IF these stories are true, then they contradict the very nature of what they claim God is"
-Give me an argument that demonstrates this

"All I need to do is point out that these fables specifically sat, "Thou shalt not kill".
They don't say "Thou shalt not murder".
So if you'd like to change that biblical ERROR you'll have to make up your own religion and rewrite the ten commandments.
If you're going to change what the fables actually say then are you even talking about them at all?
You're arguing for a totally imaginary religious doctrine that doesn't even exist.
I could write a Biblical Canon that would make sense too!
All you're suggesting is that the biblical God wasn't as wise as you when he wrote the ten commandments. Otherwise he would have written, "Thou shalt not murder".[/quote]

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder" (ESV)
I don't believe that the Bible was written in English, I hope you don't either.
The Torah was originally written in Hebrew.
The Hebrew word "rawtsakh" means murder (Exodus 20:13)
Other words translated "kill" in the KJV (I only looked in Genesis and Exodus for these words) are nawkaw, hawrag, mooth, shawkat, and tawbach.
Even if you could find the same word used in the 10 commandments and in another context (capital punishment; sacrifice) the context would determine the meaning of the word.

[Divine Insight]

You can't force a contradiction is His supposed humanity doesn'y behave godly, or His divinity does not behave very humanly...

And you can't show where it makes any sense at all to believe that Jesus was some sort of schizophrenic demigod either.

My hypothesis that Jesus was far more likely to have been a misunderstood Jewish Mahayana Buddhist, is easy to understand, perfectly rational, and doesn't require a believe in nonsensical absurdities.

My hypothesis also solves every single problem associated with the Jesus myths leaving nothing unexplained.

To accept the idea that Jesus was the demigod son of a God requires a total faith-based believe in extreme absurdities. Utterly extreme absurdities.

So since I already have a perfectly rational explanation for who Jesus was, why would I bother to even consider one that is utterly absurd?

So you can't demand that God appear to you one time: you may start to doubt what you witnessed or your own sanity. But if God gave man something concrete and objective whereby we could determine His existence (revelation in nature and His written Word) and know Him by that, then that removes the possibility of doubt and still gives one a choice. Not that He couldn't appear to everyone, or even only appear to everyone who will choose to believe Him, but objectively set the evidence available for all to examine regardless of their ultimate decision; for this purpose if nothing else the righteous and the wicked would have to coexist to some extent.

There is nothing in all of the Hebrew mythology that has even remotely suggested to me that it came from any God. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of those fables convince me that they could not possible have come from any God.

Why would a God create stories that are going to convince me (or anyone) that the stories couldn't possibly have come from an all-wise benevolent being?

-The purpose of these acts would not necessarily be for God to gain knowledge, but for our own obedience and submission to His will (and repenting to do good works would even be a good example for others to follow (1 Cor. 11:1))

Obedience and submission to his will?

Are you saying that this is what God wants from me? To be his unquestioning slave and submit to his will?

Shouldn't he ask me if I would like to do that first?

Shouldn't he also provide me with all the fine print and terms of exactly what I'm getting myself into before requiring that I make a decision?

And finally, if after having understood precisely what it is he is asking of me, shouldn't I be able to politely decline, without him becoming an angry hateful monster who will cast me into eternal damnation for not wanting to be his slave?

What kind of a God is this jimvansage?

Sounds far more like an extremely evil demon to me.

"So I would expect any real God who shows up at my door to embrace me with open arms and fully understand already though his omniscience that I am more than worthy of his love just as I am
The Christian picture of a judgmental God who is accusing me of failing to repent my sins, can only be a Christian fabrication. It simply doesn't represent truth.
An omniscient God would know better"
[/quote]
-Even imperfect non-omniscient beings are not expected to do this. You don't say "oh, I know you murdered someone, but don't feel bad about it, where not going to deny you of your right to freedom and you keep on doing what you do best"
Don't expect out of God what no human being in his right mind would do.
More to follow...[/quote]

What are you talking about?

Evidently you didn't understand what I said. The Christians are demanding that I'm a sinner, unwilling to "repent" my sins, and unworthy of their God. But a real omniscient God would know better than that.

The religion is simply false because they are demanding things of their God that are simply not true.

It's a LIE to claim that I am not willing to 'repent' any supposed "sins" that I might be guilty of.

Just because I don't jump on the Christian bigotry wagon and support Christian bigotry in the name of Jesus as the Christ Almighty, doesn't meant that I have no remorse for stupid petty things that I may have done in my life.

If there exists a genuine omniscience God, that God would absolutely need to know that I am not refusing to repent or feel remorse for anything.

So to claim that this is the situation can only be a LIE of Christianity.

In my own personal case I know it's a lie, because I know the truth of my life.

So Christianity is a lie. Plane and simple.

My dog decides to chase an airplane, but gets hit by a car in the process.
Whose fault is it really?

If you are the one who created the dog with such a low degree of intelligence and placed him into a situation where he could get hurt because of it, then it would be entirely your fault.

Absolutely. You certainly can't blame that on the dog. Even human pet owners who let their pets run out on the road and get hit by a car often feel extremely guilty about it because they know it was their fault for letting the dog loose in such a dangerous environment, and they didn't even create the dog to be so stupid. They are merely knowledgeable of the fact that dogs are that stupid.

A God who had created the dog would be guilty as SIN (pun intended)

You're not justifying God, you're creating analogies where God is dead guilty.

"Also why didn't he see to it that we are all provided with truly benevolent, intelligent, and wise mentors?
He sticks us in an dog-eat-dog world, then plays hide-and-seek and is going to blame us for not being "Perfect"?"

Whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God or some other document, or if right and wrong can be determined by our own reason, we would not be without some form of guidance.

You miss the point. A lot of children are raised by highly immoral parents, and have little or not guidance at all. Many of them turn out to be criminals. In fact, I read a while back that just about every serial killer had a really abusive childhood. Not to imply that this should excuse them, but clearly it was probably a major factor in how they turned out.

Why doesn't an intervening judgmental God see to it that every child has decent mentoring?

-You're assuming He created us with shortcoming - our only "shortcoming" is the ability to chose to go against the will of the Creator of the universe when we could just as easily choose to do His will.

Oh no. I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by the religious fables themselves.

Mankind can do nothing to change his evil ways according to the Bible, only by asking God to come into his heart can he be "changed" and made whole.

Therefore, we necessarily had to have been created with a shortcoming that we cannot do without. And if that shortcoming is God himself, then it makes no sense that we would be responsible for having to ask God to come into our lives and fix us up.

This is just yet another RED FLAG that proves to me that these religious fables are indeed the devious creation of men. The idea being that you can't even do without this God. Without this God you are a hopeless basket-case.

The problem with this fallacy is that if this is TRUTH, then you wouldn't be responsible for your situation. And thus the authors of these fables shoot themselves in the foot once again.

You can't be blamed for shortcomings that you are innately created with, even (or maybe even especially) if those shortcomings are that you don't have God in your heart.

It really doesn't matter what the shortcoming is. If you were "created" with a shortcoming, it's not your fault. And therefore it makes absolutely no sense to try to pin the blame on you for that shortcoming.

"I'm saying that the mother would be mentally ill if she were the one built the train and placed her child in the middle of tracks in the first place"
-the difference is did the mother push the child on the tracks or did the child wander onto the tracks (despite warnings and proper instruction by the mother)
Whether you accept the God of the Bible or not, you can't say He didn't attempt instruct us properly because He gave us the Bible. You tie yourself in knots denying the Bible, then accusing God of not doing what He should have done (revealing Himself and His will in the Bible).

The highly absurd, unbelievable, and clearly confusing fables of the Abrahamic religions cannot, in any reasonable way, be held up as "(proper instructions and warnings).

The Jews don't agree with each other on what Judaism is saying. The Muslims don't agree with each other one what Islam is saying. The Catholics (even in spite of their Pope) often disagree on the instructions and warnings of their underlying scriptures.

The protesting Protestants disagree with everyone on what the instructions are, and they especially disagree with each other.

So these Abrahamic religion cannot in any rational way be held up as (proper warnings and instructions).

Thus far you haven't had a convincing apology yet for these religions.

"You're analogy of a human mortal mother attempting to save her child from things she can have no responsibility for does not correctly describe the situation of a God who created EVERYTHING.
All you do with those kinds of analogies is suggest that God is as helpless as a mortal woman. And that there are things that are completely out of God's control"

-God chooses not to control our will - though He could, then anyone who hated God would be forced to serve Him for all eternity - is that fair and right?

What?

So instead he confuses the hell out of everyone, demands they believe in utter absurdities of (WHICH ONE?) of the convoluted Abrahamic myths? And will cast the confused into eternal damnation is they merely don't believe these utterly confused absurd stories?

Is that fair and right?

You're not even offering rational apologies for these absurd tales.

And what if it's not punishment so much as deprivation? Not hellfire and brimstone literally, but an existence devoid of everything that makes life worth living? An eternal timeout as it were.

If you can't politely decline to become this God's eternal slave without there being some sort of negative repercussions, then it's not a benevolent God, it's a demon.

For a God to truly be benevolent there has to be a way to say "No Thank You" politely and just be peacefully and painlessly "un-created" with no hard feelings on either side.

There is NO EXCUSE for the Abrahamic myths.

There is no excuse for a supposedly benevolent creator to not have provided a peaceful and polite way for the objects of his creation to politely say "No Thank You".

But the Abrahamic myths refuse to even remotely consider this. You either cower down to this God's demands, or you'll face his vengeance!

And to me, that reeks of man-made dogma to control the masses out of FEAR.

No truly benevolent God would create such an impossible situation where there is no polite way to simply decline being the eternal obedient slave to this God.

The religion has to be FAKE.

That's all there is to it. It cannot be true because it flies in the very face of benevolence. It's a blatant contradiction to the very character that this God is supposed to represent.

"So to even suggest that the behavior of mortal fathers "Justifies" the behavior of an [ASSUMED TO BE - jvs] imaginary God is absurd"
"Violence solves the problem and pays for sins?" no, sacrifice does, love does

"I also point out where the fables clearly contradict themselves. We have Mark and John proclaiming that to merely not believe in Jesus is reason for damnation, but then we have Jesus proclaiming on the Cross "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"
So which is it?
Does God condemn everyone who fails to believe in Jesus?
Or does God forgive those who don't believe because they know not what they do?"

-The alleged contradictions get weaker and weaker. A family might forgive the individual who murdered their son, but a pardon from the authorities takes a process of paperwork and procedure. God the Father is simply acting as both parties.

But you're the one who was arguing that Jesus was BOTH man and God at the very outset of this post. Now you're going to argue that Jesus is merely a "family member".

Besides, there are further contradictions right in the scriptures on this very point.

John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

So Jesus didn't even know this?

What was Jesus asking the Father to forgive people for if the Father judgeth no man and all jugement had been committed to Jesus?

If that were true then on the Cross all he would have needed to say is "I forgive you for you know not what you do".

But instead he was asking the Father to forgive them. Thus implying that John must have known something in verse 5:22 that Jesus didn't.

These tales are riddled with endless contradictions.

"That's my point. IF these stories are true, then they contradict the very nature of what they claim God is"
-Give me an argument that demonstrates this

I just gave you an argument a few paragraphs above.

A truly benevolent God would provide people with a polite way to decline his request that they become his eternal obedient slaves. But this mythology has their fictitious God demanding that everyone must either become his slave or be condemned.

There is no "respectable" way to decline this God's request that we become his obedient slaves.

There's no way out. I hold that this is not a benevolent God.

Especially in light of the fact that ANY refusal to become the eternal slave of this God is deemed to be a very nasty choice in this religion "worthy" of punishment.

It has to be a false religion jimvansage. Either that, or our creator is one hell of a demonic monster. Certainly not benevolent, nor trustworthy.

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder" (ESV)
I don't believe that the Bible was written in English, I hope you don't either.
The Torah was originally written in Hebrew.
The Hebrew word "rawtsakh" means murder (Exodus 20:13)
Other words translated "kill" in the KJV (I only looked in Genesis and Exodus for these words) are nawkaw, hawrag, mooth, shawkat, and tawbach.
Even if you could find the same word used in the 10 commandments and in another context (capital punishment; sacrifice) the context would determine the meaning of the word.

Ok, you win on that point.

I'll give you that one for SURE.

We can't trust these scriptures because we have no clue how to even properly translate them into modern languages properly.

It's way past time for this intervening God to come back and reestablish a meaningful communication with humanity in that case.

I will grant you that.

When that happens I'll take a look at this new communication. Being fresh and in modern language maybe it will actually portray a totally different picture.

But in the meantime, we don't even have anything we can point to as being worthy of looking into. I've already pointed out that the Abrahamic religions are as fragmented as can be. The Jews and Muslisms don't even believe that Jesus was the special only begotten Son of God who was sent to pay for the sins of mankind.

So clearly, no one has a clue what these ancient fables might have been trying to say.

I'm personally convinced that they are indeed just man-made superstitions, and that explains why they are both absurd, and so convoluted and no two people can agree on what they have to say.

Like I say, that's a far more reasonable hypothesis.

[jimvansage]

I was starting to answer every point line by line until I realized something:

Your objection is not that God punishes those who fail to trust Him and/or disobey Him, it is the manner of punishment.
F. LaGard Smith is one scholar who has taken the annihilationist view of hell - that one ceases to exist when condemned rather than the majority view of absence from God for all eternity.
I don't hold his view, but I'm willing to explore the possibility that I may be wrong.

As "politely" as a son may reject his parent, the one who gave him life, there are consequences to such a denial. One should not expect help or a home from a parent after the son has denied the truth of his relationship.

[Divine Insight]

As "politely" as a son may reject his parent, the one who gave him life, there are consequences to such a denial. One should not expect help or a home from a parent after the son has denied the truth of his relationship.

These kind of arguments that make analogies with human parents and their children are incorrect fallacies.

To begin with, the human parent is standing right there in flesh-and-bone speaking to the child. The child is under no obligation to merely have faith that some invisible unseen and totally undetectable parent supposedly exists.

The child also has the opportunity to actually converse with a human parent. The child can voice his or her concerns, and the parent has the opportunity to explain to the child precisely why it is that the parent requires certain things from the child.

This is not the case with "religions" the proclaim to "speak for an invisible God".

So there really is no analogy here at all. The analogy that you are proposing is basically a farce. It's farce because it presumes the "reality" of the God in question.

I'm not questioning any God.

I'm questioning the absurdities of what I claim to be "false religions".

And the points I make are points that suggest that these religions are necessarily false.

I was starting to answer every point line by line until I realized something:

Your objection is not that God punishes those who fail to trust Him and/or disobey Him, it is the manner of punishment.

Absolutely. That's my point.

And I'm very glad that you included the point that this God punishes people who merely fail to "Trust" him, or have "blind faith" in him.

Let's go back to your analogy of an actual human parent. If you father was constantly yelling at you for every little thing that you do and threatening to give you beatings or physical punishments, and you started to question whether you should TRUST HIM.

What's he going to do? Start screaming at you, "What! You don't TRUST me! I'll beat the hell out you for not trusting me!"

That's supposed to make the child "TRUST" the father?

How can you trust someone who's threatening to beat the hell out of you if you refuse to trust them?

~~~~~

And more to the point, you keep talking about "obedience" to this God of a religion.

Why should I, as a mortal human being, believe that your religion 'speaks for God'. A God who no one has ever seen.

There are other religions that make far more sense to me.

Christianity proclaims that God "punished" Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. Which supposedly flows over to be a continual punishment for all human women.

To me, that's a horrible punishment, and I question whether I should "TRUST" a God who reacts so violently to things, and who things that making people suffer is an answer to anything.

Moreover, what does the fall from grace story of the Bible claim?

It claims that Eve was initially innocent and didn't not even know the difference between Good and Evil. That suggests to me that she couldn't even understand the concept of a lie. Because telling a lie is a sin, and thus it is an evil thing to do.

So Eve, could not even have understood the concept lying or deception before she ate this magical fruit that would give her that knowledge.

So what happens. Even in all her INNOCENCE is beguiled by a serpent who lies to her and proclaim that it's ok to eat this fruit and that nothing bad will happen to her if she does.

So he INNOCENTLY believes the serpent and eats the fruit.

What happens next?

This God comes back and asks Eve what happened.

What does Eve do? Does she lie to God and pretend that nothing happened?

No, she tells God the TRUTH.

She openly confesses her actions, and she even rats on the serpent who had beguiled her. She was totally open and honest with God and CONFESSED her "sins". Which is precisely what we're supposed to do is it not?

So here we have Eve confessing to God precisely what had happened and turning in all the guilty partners, and what does God do?

He curses Eve with greatly multiplied conception and childbirth?

And we're suppose to TRUST this God?

As far as I can see he's not even trustworthy. He over-reacts to every little thing and goes off the deep end cursing people with horrible violent punishments even when they have tried to be as open and honest with him as they can be.

And let's not forget that before Eve had eaten the fruit that revealed to her the knowledge of Good and Evil should couldn't possible have understood what a lie, or deception even was. So how could her "Fall from Grace" have been anything other than purely innocent naivety.

And for that this God curses Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth?

If this God was my human mortal father, I'd go to the authorities and ask to be protected from him. From my perspective he's an insane madman who has no business raising children in the first place.

So I question these religious myths jimvansage.

I'm not questioning "God".

I'm questioning the validity of these God-myths.

Why should I believe that our creator is as unreasonable as these myths demand?

~~~~~

Hey, had these stories proclaimed that Eve had knowingly plotted to eat the forbidden fruit, and even tried to hide that fact from God and refused to confess her actions, etc., then maybe these myths might have made a little more sense.

But that's NOT how these stories are written so we can't go changing them now.

If I went through the Bible changing every little story so that it makes sense, by the time I were done I would have a completely different religion.

I have no choice but to evaluate the Biblical fables for what they actually say.

That's the only honest way to evaluate them.

And when I do that, I see myths that are outrageously unbelievable, IMHO.

If these fables had actually come from any real God, why wouldn't they be more clear about these extremely important issues?

My mother, and our family church, taught me as a child that the Bible has answers to all our questions. Well that clearly isn't true for me. Because when I read the Bible I only come away with more questions than I had before I read. Questions that clearly are not even addressed in the Bible.

Like how could someone who doesn't know the difference between Good and Evil even be held responsible for having "fallen from grace" in the first place. If they didn't know the difference between Good and Evil then they would have had to make that fall in a state of complete innocence and naivety. The Bible offers no explanation to resolve this question.

And then Eve confesses her actions, turns in all guilty parties, just as we are taught that we should do, yet in spite of her sincere confessions God slaps horrible punishments on her holding her "guilty" of having been innocent, naive, and having confessed her actions openly.

I don't see where Eve could have done any better really.

She did everything right, including confessing her sins, and then gets slapped with a nasty punishment.

These fables are flawed. They weren't even well-thought-out by the people who initially started these superstitious rumors.

I don't see any divinity in these stories. From my perspective as clearly as false and nonsensical as Greek Mythology.

They even contain many of the same elements. A God of Gods, who no other Gods shall be placed above. A God who can be appeased via blood sacrifices, etc.

It's really so similar to the concepts of Greek mythology that it would be unreasonable to believe that it wasn't getting its ideas from there.

And why should we believe that the "real creator" of this universe just happens to behave like Zeus's twin brother?

Isn't it far more reasonable to just realize that one culture is stealing ideas from another culture and creating their own version of "God".

Even later in Christianity, the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin woman is just the concept of a demigod being repeated.

Why should the real creator of the universe just coincidentally use the same method of sending a messenger to mankind that a totally fictitious Zeus had used in Greek mythology?

Am I challenging "God" by asking these questions?

Or am I challenging religious mythologies?

You offer the analogy of a child refusing to obey or respect their physical parent.

But that's not anywhere near what I'm doing. I'm challenging validity of mythologies, not the authority of any God.

[jimvansage]

"To begin with, the human parent is standing right there in flesh-and-bone speaking to the child. The child is under no obligation to merely have faith that some invisible unseen and totally undetectable parent supposedly exists"
God is Invisible. but not undetectable - but that's a matter of philosophy as well as religion

"And I'm very glad that you included the point that this God punishes people who merely fail to "Trust" him, or have "blind faith" in him."
-God doesn't demand blind faith (John 6:69)

"Let's go back to your analogy of an actual human parent. If you father was constantly yelling at you for every little thing that you do and threatening to give you beatings or physical punishments, and you started to question whether you should TRUST HIM"
But if the parent is good to you more than he corrects you, then what are you to conclude about him?
There's a difference between discipline and eternal punishment for sure, but your arguments are not novel.

"And that no one may say what is said by those who are deemed philosophers, that our assertions that the wicked are punished in eternal fire are big words and bugbears, and that we wish men to live virtuously through fear, and not because such a life is good and pleasant; I will briefly reply to this, that if this be not so, God does not exist; or, if He exists, He cares not for men, and neither virtue nor vice is anything, and, as we said before, lawgivers unjustly punish those who transgress good commandments." -Justin Martyr, Second Apology

"Why should I, as a mortal human being, believe that your religion 'speaks for God'. A God who no one has ever seen"
Because Christianity teaches the truth on every subject, especially that "No man hath seen God at any time" (1 John 4:12)

"Christianity proclaims that God "punished" Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. Which supposedly flows over to be a continual punishment for all human women"
There would have been no pain or tears at all if there was no transgression in Paradise, theologically speaking.

"To me, that's a horrible punishment, and I question whether I should "TRUST" a God who reacts so violently to things, and who things that making people suffer is an answer to anything"
How would you react to the ebola virus? Just because you don't view sin as seriously as an allegedly perfect being would doesn't mean it's not serious.

"Moreover, what does the fall from grace story of the Bible claim?
It claims that Eve was initially innocent and didn't not even know the difference between Good and Evil. That suggests to me that she couldn't even understand the concept of a lie. Because telling a lie is a sin, and thus it is an evil thing to do.
So Eve, could not even have understood the concept lying or deception before she ate this magical fruit that would give her that knowledge"
but she could reason - God said this, the serpent said that.
they couldn't both be true
should i listen to God or the serpent?

What does Eve do? Does she lie to God and pretend that nothing happened?
No, she tells God the TRUTH.

-----the Truth was that she had disobeyed God.

"She openly confesses her actions, and she even rats on the serpent who had beguiled her. She was totally open and honest with God and CONFESSED her "sins". Which is precisely what we're supposed to do is it not?"
So here we have Eve confessing to God precisely what had happened and turning in all the guilty partners, and what does God do?
He curses Eve with greatly multiplied conception and childbirth?
And we're suppose to TRUST this God?"
A man can confess to murder, he may still have to serve a life sentence.
There is a difference in being forgiven but still facing the consequences of your decision.
Confession isn't everything. Important, but not all.

"And let's not forget that before Eve had eaten the fruit that revealed to her the knowledge of Good and Evil should couldn't possible have understood what a lie, or deception even was. So how could her "Fall from Grace" have been anything other than purely innocent naivety"
Oftentimes, Ignorance of the law is no excuse (Acts 17:30)
She KNEW what God said, she repeated it herself.

"Hey, had these stories proclaimed that Eve had knowingly plotted to eat the forbidden fruit, and even tried to hide that fact from God and refused to confess her actions, etc., then maybe these myths might have made a little more sense."
They were attempting to hide - their nakedness and themselves. At least read the account before you begin criticizing it.

"I have no choice but to evaluate the Biblical fables for what they actually say"
Adam did knowingly eat of the fruit (1 Timothy 2:14)
he received punishment too
They did try to hide, though you spoke as though they didn't.
Is it possible you could be wrong about other things the Bible "actually" says?

"My mother, and our family church, taught me as a child that the Bible has answers to all our questions. Well that clearly isn't true for me. Because when I read the Bible I only come away with more questions than I had before I read. Questions that clearly are not even addressed in the Bible"
It is not true that we have all the answers.
"All things pertaining to life and godliness"? Yes.
but ALL answers? no
"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29)
Don't let one church or teacher dissuade you from understanding what the Bible actually says.

"Like how could someone who doesn't know the difference between Good and Evil even be held responsible for having "fallen from grace" in the first place. If they didn't know the difference between Good and Evil then they would have had to make that fall in a state of complete innocence and naivety. The Bible offers no explanation to resolve this question"
They knew one commandment - thou shalt not eat of this one tree - and they broke it.
Had they known ALL of God's commandments, they would have broken one sooner.
Mark Twain always said "If God had forbidden the snake, they would have eaten the snake" (paraphrase)

"And then Eve confesses her actions, turns in all guilty parties, just as we are taught that we should do, yet in spite of her sincere confessions God slaps horrible punishments on her holding her "guilty" of having been innocent, naive, and having confessed her actions openly"
Adam blamed Eve (and God in a roundabout way - "the woman whom you gave me")
Eve blamed the serpent
God punished them all.

"I don't see where Eve could have done any better really"
I know. Like Mark Twain said: frail human nature compared to God who always chooses the right.

"It's really so similar to the concepts of Greek mythology that it would be unreasonable to believe that it wasn't getting its ideas from there.
Isn't it far more reasonable to just realize that one culture is stealing ideas from another culture and creating their own version of "God". "
Watermelons are 70% water.
Humans are 70% water.
All humans are watermelons.
Similarity is not identity - there's a flaw somewhere in that kind of reasoning.
Maybe Greece copied stuff from the Bible, or retold oral tradition from Adam.
Who knows?
Who cares?

Even later in Christianity, the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin woman is just the concept of a demigod being repeated. [chicken or the egg? Isaiah 7:14 written 800 BC]

Why should the real creator of the universe just coincidentally use the same method of sending a messenger to mankind that a totally fictitious Zeus had used in Greek mythology?
[chicken or the egg?]

"Am I challenging "God" by asking these questions?"
Nothing wrong with asking these questions, it's the assumptions in some of the answers provided that exclude the possibility that it even might possibly be true.

[Divine Insight]

"And I'm very glad that you included the point that this God punishes people who merely fail to "Trust" him, or have "blind faith" in him."
-God doesn't demand blind faith (John 6:69)

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

First off, this verse is Jesus' disciples proclaiming to Jesus that they are "sure" that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. But surly they could only have faith in that themselves.

Moreover, that verse most certainly wouldn't apply to anyone living today. Did you ever met Jesus face-to-face. And even if you did, how could you be sure that he was the Son of God? Clearly everyone who met Jesus didn't not believe this. The Pharisees most certainly didn't believe it.

So yes the biblical God would indeed be required that people today in the 21st century do indeed believe in him on totally BLIND faith. You're just accepting that these ancient fables and rumors 'might' be true. You have absolutely no way of knowing that they are anything more than purely superstitious convoluted, and even purposefully distorted rumors.

So your belief that Jesus was the Son of God can only be pure blind faith.

But if the parent is good to you more than he corrects you, then what are you to conclude about him?
There's a difference between discipline and eternal punishment for sure, but your arguments are not novel.

If Hitler were to treat you nice as long as you obey him and do everything he says would that offset the fact that he casts people who refuse to obey him into a fiery furnace?

I don't think about this in terms of "personal salvation". I think about it in terms of how a creator treats his creation in general. This God supposedly condemns the vast majority of souls he creates.

Even Jesus is said to have confirmed this. The path is straight and the gate is narrow that leads to the kingdom of heaven and few will make it.

Well if only few make it to this God's heavenly paradise then clearly the vast majority of souls this God creates must end up in hell or eternal damnation.

So to me, it represents an entity that is far more evil than good.

I can just look at myself and say, "Well I'm saved and that's all that matters to me".

So many Christians are worried that people might not be "saved". But why should they be worried about it? Don't they trust God to save those who are worthy of saving and that anyone who ends up being condemned must certainly deserve their fate.

After all, how could they not "deserve" their fate if God is to be fair?

Many Christians even claim that God himself is saddened when someone fails to make it into heaven. But why should God be saddened by this? In order for him to be sad he would have to believe that the person who didn't make it fell through the cracks accidentally and didn't truly "deserve" the fate that awaited him.

In order for God to feel 'bad' or 'sad' about someone not making it to heaven would imply that God himself feels that his system isn't truly just. For what would there be to feel sad about if the person who is heading for hell truly "deserves" their fate and the system is air-tight righteous justice?

The only people you'd need to feel sorry for would be people who didn't deserve to go to hell but somehow feel through the cracks of an imperfect system. But that would require that God's systems of justice is flawed and imperfect.

So from my perspective it can't be made to work in any case. It must necessarily be nothing more than man-made superstition.

"And that no one may say what is said by those who are deemed philosophers, that our assertions that the wicked are punished in eternal fire are big words and bugbears, and that we wish men to live virtuously through fear, and not because such a life is good and pleasant; I will briefly reply to this, that if this be not so, God does not exist; or, if He exists, He cares not for men, and neither virtue nor vice is anything, and, as we said before, lawgivers unjustly punish those who transgress good commandments." -Justin Martyr, Second Apology

So? Maybe Justin Martyr is right and God does not exist, and lawgivers are unjustly punishing people, especially if they are using religious dogma as the criteria for what constitutes "commandments".

Gee whiz, there are places in the Bible where it says to kill our unruly children. There are places were failure to show up for worship on the Sabbath is justification to be put to death.

In truth if we actually employed the Bible as our criteria for law, we may as well ask the Taliban to come and rule our counties. The Taliban actually stand for many of the things that are "Laws" of the OT.

We would have no freedom of religion. To merely speak out against the "Laws of God" would be blaspheme punishable by death. The OT even teaches people to seek out heathens and kill them and burn their temples and cities to the ground.

Is that what you'd like to see in the 21st century? A return to strict biblical LAW as the "Word of God"?

"Why should I, as a mortal human being, believe that your religion 'speaks for God'. A God who no one has ever seen"
Because Christianity teaches the truth on every subject, especially that "No man hath seen God at any time" (1 John 4:12)

So I'm supposed to believe in an invisible God just because a fable proclaims that no one has ever seen their imaginary God?

What sense does that even make?

"Christianity proclaims that God "punished" Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. Which supposedly flows over to be a continual punishment for all human women"
There would have been no pain or tears at all if there was no transgression in Paradise, theologically speaking.

And this supposedly justifies God greatly multiplying sorrow in this very rude and crude way?

I don't buy the apology.

"To me, that's a horrible punishment, and I question whether I should "TRUST" a God who reacts so violently to things, and who things that making people suffer is an answer to anything"
How would you react to the ebola virus? Just because you don't view sin as seriously as an allegedly perfect being would doesn't mean it's not serious.

So why did God design the ebola virus in the first place?

A God who creates his own creation by design can chose to make it as perfect or evil as he likes. It's his choice.

"Moreover, what does the fall from grace story of the Bible claim?
It claims that Eve was initially innocent and didn't not even know the difference between Good and Evil. That suggests to me that she couldn't even understand the concept of a lie. Because telling a lie is a sin, and thus it is an evil thing to do.
So Eve, could not even have understood the concept lying or deception before she ate this magical fruit that would give her that knowledge"

but she could reason - God said this, the serpent said that.
they couldn't both be true
should i listen to God or the serpent?

But the serpent beguiled her and told her that he was bringing to her a message from God.

How was she supposed to know that he was "lying" when she couldn't possible have had the knowledge of what it even means to "lie"?

In other words, she would have had to have had a knowledge of what constitutes the difference between good and evil to have even made a choice between good and evil in the first place.

The fall from grace stories is innately an oxymoron. It can't be true no matter what. So it's my position that whoever made up these fables wasn't thinking deeply enough to realize that they were creating a paradoxical story.

What does Eve do? Does she lie to God and pretend that nothing happened?
No, she tells God the TRUTH.

-----the Truth was that she had disobeyed God.

NO! That is not what she confessed to. On the contrary she confessed to having been beguiled by a serpent (a completely different thing from having knowingly and purposefully disobeyed God).

This is how the story is written. She doesn't confess to having willfully disobeyed God. She has a legitimate honest and innocent excuse for her behavior.

God should have forgiven her, IMHO.

(based on the Biblical story as it is written)

"She openly confesses her actions, and she even rats on the serpent who had beguiled her. She was totally open and honest with God and CONFESSED her "sins". Which is precisely what we're supposed to do is it not?"
So here we have Eve confessing to God precisely what had happened and turning in all the guilty partners, and what does God do?
He curses Eve with greatly multiplied conception and childbirth?
And we're suppose to TRUST this God?"

A man can confess to murder, he may still have to serve a life sentence.
There is a difference in being forgiven but still facing the consequences of your decision.
Confession isn't everything. Important, but not all.

But in Christianity it is EVERYTHING and ALL IMPORTANT.

If you confess your sins to Jesus Christ you will be forgiven, even for the most heinous of crimes evidently.

Jesus doesn't say, "Ok, I accept your confession but you're going to hell anyway"

It doesn't work like that. Jesus has the magical power to "Wash your sins away" with his innocent blood.

You are completely forgiven and your sins are washed away, like as if they had never happened.

God could have done the same thing for Eve.

Eve confessed everything that had happened as truthfully as she could.

Jesus would apparently have accepted her confession and splattered his blood all over her to wash away her "sins".

"And let's not forget that before Eve had eaten the fruit that revealed to her the knowledge of Good and Evil should couldn't possible have understood what a lie, or deception even was. So how could her "Fall from Grace" have been anything other than purely innocent naivety"

Oftentimes, Ignorance of the law is no excuse (Acts 17:30)
She KNEW what God said, she repeated it herself.

None of that matters anyway, because like I have already pointed out, any "Fall From Grace" fable is necessarily already innately terminally flawed.

She could NOT have even known that it was "evil" to disobey God, for even that would require that she already had a knowledge of Good and Evil.

In fact, in this entire mythological fable "Evil" itself is really nothing more than disobedience of God.

Therefore if Eve did not have the knowledge of Good and Evil then should could not have understood that it is Evil or wrong to disobey God.

That what I mean by the innate paradox and logical inconsistency of any Fall from Grace story. It's a very poorly thought out fable.

An genuinely intelligent author would have written a story where God freely bestowed Adam and Eve with complete knowledge of Good and Evil and Evil willfully chose Evil (i.e. knowing disobedience of God), over Good.

But that's NOT what the Biblical fables claim. The biblical fables have a made up story that defies reason.

Whoever wrote these fables didn't even see the underlying paradox of the stories they were making up.

To me this is proof positive that these fables are made-up stories, because no all-wise omniscient God could have possibly made such a blatant error.

"Hey, had these stories proclaimed that Eve had knowingly plotted to eat the forbidden fruit, and even tried to hide that fact from God and refused to confess her actions, etc., then maybe these myths might have made a little more sense."
They were attempting to hide - their nakedness and themselves. At least read the account before you begin criticizing it.

"I have no choice but to evaluate the Biblical fables for what they actually say"

Adam did knowingly eat of the fruit (1 Timothy 2:14)
he received punishment too
They did try to hide, though you spoke as though they didn't.
Is it possible you could be wrong about other things the Bible "actually" says?

Don't pull that underhanded evangelistic tacit on me. I'm not wrong about this.

I was speaking only of Eve. I haven't even mentioned Adam. And that brings up a whole other paradox that I see as being grossly problematic.

Yes, it does appear in these stories that Adam seemed to have a clue that what they were doing was "wrong" but he went ahead and did it anyone in spite of the fact that he believed that he was indeed disobeying God.

Fine, I have no problem with that.

But then what happens?

God comes back and punishes Eve by proclaiming that her husband shall rule over her and her desire should be to him.

What?

Shouldn't that be precisely the other way around?

Here, we have Eve proclaiming that she was innocently beguiled by the serpent, but we have Adam believing that he is willfully disobeying God.

So should Adam be demoted to being ruled over by Eve?

He's the one who's most likely to CHOOSE to disobey God knowingly.

What God doing appointing him to be in charge of anything?

~~~~

And you bring up another good point:

They did try to hide, though you spoke as though they didn't.

No, I never claimed that they didn't try to hide themselves.

But why were they hiding? Because they had knowingly disobeyed God?

No. They were hiding because after having eaten the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil they suddenly knew that they were NAKED and they also suddenly KNEW that there was something innately wrong about being naked.

And for me, that just brings up yet another contradiction.

If being naked is innately "evil" then why were Adam and Eve naked even before they ate the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil?

Wouldn't that have been "evil" even before they knew it?

Why hadn't God already provided them with clothes before? Why did he create them naked and having them standing around naked in the Garden of Eden if being naked is "evil".

So that's just yet another oxymoron right there.

I never said that they didn't try to hide from God. All I addressed was the fact that when they were finally standing in front of God Eve confessed everything to God just a "GOOD" Christian is taught is the right and proper thing to do.

~~~~~

"My mother, and our family church, taught me as a child that the Bible has answers to all our questions. Well that clearly isn't true for me. Because when I read the Bible I only come away with more questions than I had before I read. Questions that clearly are not even addressed in the Bible"

It is not true that we have all the answers.
"All things pertaining to life and godliness"? Yes.
but ALL answers? no

Well the things pertaining to life and "godliness" are subjective. In fact, the very notion of "godliness" in this religion is entirely assumed to be whatever these fables claim it to be.

I disagree that many of the things these fables claim represent "godliness".

And if we were to argue that point what would it degrade into? It would degrade into an argument where you simply proclaim that everything that the bible defines as "godliness" must be true because it's the word of God, and my personal objections are meaningless because they are just my personal objections.



That's not even an argument worth having.

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29)

Don't let one church or teacher dissuade you from understanding what the Bible actually says.

Well fine. Then the bible doesn't have answers to everything. I agree. I already found that out on my own.

But see also in the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy, it falls right back on the demand that do the words of this LAW!

I just confesses that the Bible doesn't even reveal answers to serious questions yet it still acts like we should accept it as LAW.

By why? Why should we accept something as God's LAW when it doesn't even justify itself via rational explanations?

This is just yet another RED FLAG that tells me these authors are just trying to push their LAWS onto me in the name of a God who doesn't even exist and even the know nothing about.

"Like how could someone who doesn't know the difference between Good and Evil even be held responsible for having "fallen from grace" in the first place. If they didn't know the difference between Good and Evil then they would have had to make that fall in a state of complete innocence and naivety. The Bible offers no explanation to resolve this question"

They knew one commandment - thou shalt not eat of this one tree - and they broke it.

'

So? As I had already pointed out breaking a "commandment" without understanding that do so is an "Evil act" is meaningless.

This would be like you commanding a baby in a crib not to climb out of the crib. Then when the baby climbs out of the crib you treat it as if he could have fully understood that it was 'disobeying" you and precisely what all that entails.

These stories cannot be made to work, IMHO.

Had they known ALL of God's commandments, they would have broken one sooner.
Mark Twain always said "If God had forbidden the snake, they would have eaten the snake" (paraphrase)

Well of course, make enough laws and sooner or later one will be broken. I also agree with Mark Twain, it really wouldn't even matter what the laws were. No matter what laws you make they're bound to be broken.

And this principle is just yet another reason why "Fall from Grace" stories are paradoxical.

The whole idea of a "Fall from Grace" being pinned onto mankind implies that it could have gone some other way. Was God surprised by the fall from grace? Or was in inevitable?

If God was surprised, then God cannot be omniscient.

If God was not surprised, then the fall from grace was inevitable and therefore those who fell cannot be held responsible for something that they could not avoid.

If you're going to make up a God myth, you need to start with a story that makes sense.

If the Bible had started out with God creating Adam and Eve and simply telling them that they will not be able to do as he says, but he's going to lay down rules anyway and that life is going to be a necessary test to see how well they can follow the rules, then you'd have a story that would at least have some potential merit.

You'd have an HONEST creator laying the cards on the table.

But no, that's NOT the Biblical story. The Biblical fables are a completely dishonest portrait of a supposed "Fall from Grace" that is entirely pinned onto mankind like as if God had nothing at all to do with it.

That's why the Biblical fables are clearly false man-made fables.

The Biblical fables try to pin the blame of "sin" onto mankind.

They go far further by trying to pin the blame of the "fall from grace" specifically on Eve and make like it was Eve you corrupted Adam. And then they use their mythical God to justify their patriarchal male-chauvinism to make women second class citizens in the name of God.

It's disgusting IMHO.

Have you ever thought about why Adam would need a "helpmate"?

Why would a God create Adam first? A totally useless person who cannot even have offspring. And then take a rib from Adam to make him a "helpmate".

What would Adam have need help with? What was his mission that he needed help with?

The story would make far more sense turned around the other way.

God creates Eve (a woman who can have offspring).

Then God sees that Eve needs help raising her children, so he creates Adam (a male who cannot have offspring) as a helpmate for the woman.

Now that at least make more sense.

The patriarchal Biblical story of Adam needing a helpmate makes no sense at all.

"And then Eve confesses her actions, turns in all guilty parties, just as we are taught that we should do, yet in spite of her sincere confessions God slaps horrible punishments on her holding her "guilty" of having been innocent, naive, and having confessed her actions openly"

Adam blamed Eve (and God in a roundabout way - "the woman whom you gave me")
Eve blamed the serpent
God punished them all.

Adam was a jerk. He should have owned up to his own actions.

Eve told the TRUTH.

God was a jerk in this story because he punished all three when he should have only punished the serpent and Adam.

God was also a jerk by commanding that Adam should rule over Eve when clearly it should have been the other way around.

"I don't see where Eve could have done any better really"
I know. Like Mark Twain said: frail human nature compared to God who always chooses the right.

How could God ever choose wrong if his very choices determine what constitutes right or wrong?

"It's really so similar to the concepts of Greek mythology that it would be unreasonable to believe that it wasn't getting its ideas from there.
Isn't it far more reasonable to just realize that one culture is stealing ideas from another culture and creating their own version of "God". "


Watermelons are 70% water.
Humans are 70% water.
All humans are watermelons.
Similarity is not identity - there's a flaw somewhere in that kind of reasoning.
Maybe Greece copied stuff from the Bible, or retold oral tradition from Adam.
Who knows?
Who cares?

I care. Should you care too? Don't you care whether these stories are truth or fables?

For Christianity the question of who copied who is obvious.

Jesus is NOT the first story ever told of a demigod being born of a woman who had been impregnated by a God.

It's crystal clear who's copying things.

Even later in Christianity, the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin woman is just the concept of a demigod being repeated. [chicken or the egg? Isaiah 7:14 written 800 BC]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus wasn't named Immanuel anyway. He goes by many names but Immanuel isn't one of them.

So clearly Jesus could not have been related to the prophesy of Isaiah.

Why should the real creator of the universe just coincidentally use the same method of sending a messenger to mankind that a totally fictitious Zeus had used in Greek mythology?
[chicken or the egg?]

Greek mythology clearly wasn't copying Hebrew mythology. Greek mythology predates Hebrew mythology anyway.

"Am I challenging "God" by asking these questions?"
Nothing wrong with asking these questions, it's the assumptions in some of the answers provided that exclude the possibility that it even might possibly be true.

Those are my conclusion.

These fables cannot be made to work in a "reasonable way".

In order to try to make these fables work you need to give them so much leeway, that you could actually resurrect Greek Mythology if you're willing to bend that far.

That's what I have come to recognize.

In order to "salvage" the biblical stories I'd have to accept so many absurdities and contradictions that when I stop and think about it seriously, I could actually resurrect Greek Mythology by just giving those fables the same range of faith-based belief.

~~~~

And then I need to ask myself the very serious question:

Why would I want to do this?

So that I can have faith that mankind has fallen from grace from a God, and that I'm in hot water with my creator, and that they only way to get back in good with him is to accept and condone that I'm the reason he had to have his son crucified on a pole to pay for my sins?

Why should I be so passionate about trying to make such a story work?

To be perfectly honest with you I'd much rather believe that it is indeed totally absurd man-made myths.

Why should I be so desperate to believe that I'm in the dog house with my creator?

And what about my ORIGINAL CONCERN before we even got into the fall from grace discussion?

Why would a benevolent God create a dog-eat-dog world for in the first place?

~~~~~

To be perfectly honest with you jimvansage,

IF this world were not naturally dog-eat-dog. In other words, if animal life and plant life were totally separate things, and all animals were naturally vegetarians. I might be inclined to bend over backwards to support a God myth that proclaims that God created the perfect world and "Saw that it was Good" and humans are somehow responsible for being the "sin factor".

But that's not the truth of reality.

Take humans right out of the picture completely and you still have a dog-eat-dog world left.

How can humans be responsible for what we consider to be "evil" when the world itself is innately that way already with no need for humans to corrupt it?

The Bible tries to pin the problem of "sin" onto mankind.

But there's really no rationale reason to believe that humans are responsible for things that we consider to be "bad".

Clearly this is a natural part of the natural world. Humans are not responsible for this.

We just have to find a way to deal with an imperfect world. We are not the cause of it.

Nor are we the reason that some jealous God had to have his son nailed to a pole.

These are just made made superstitions.

Myths.

Although in the case of Jesus, it's quite possible that some guy actually was nailed to a pole. And this is what sparked those particular superstitions.

But no God needed to do this to 'save' mankind from his own choice to be sinful.

What about the natural dog-eat-dog world?

Who gets nailed to a pole for that one?

[jimvansage]

"If the Bible had started out with God creating Adam and Eve and simply telling them that they will not be able to do as he says, but he's going to lay down rules anyway and that life is going to be a necessary test to see how well they can follow the rules, then you'd have a story that would at least have some potential merit"


Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Romans 7:10-13 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Are you ready to accept that it might not be a fable then?

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16)