Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[otseng]

Doesn't the Bible say that God places all those who are in authority?

I assume you are referring to Rom 13:1. The context of this passage is actually in regards to secular authority (Roman rulers), rather than ecclesiastical authority. Also, it says to be "subject to", not to "accept everything they say as God's words."

Surely if this holds at all it should hold within the institutions of God's own church. Wouldn't it then be blaspheme to challenge the authority of God's Church?

Pastors, as well as politicians, are fallible.

Moreover shouldn't there at least be a "step-by-step guide" on how to achieve salvation?

There's the ABC guide to becoming a Christian. This is pretty much accepted by evangelical Christians.

As far as I'm concerned, even if Christianity is true I have already received salvation. I have done everything that is required of me to qualify for salvation within this religion. And I'm convinced that belief in Jesus is not even required because, as far as I'm concerned Jesus himself has said as much according to the Gospels themselves.

Christian salvation without Jesus? That's basing it on your own interpretation of one parable.

Also, having been a born again Christian I even officially repented from my childhood sins and asked Jesus to come into my life as he had promised to do. At that point in time and sins I may have had prior to that are forgiven, and Jesus is supposed to come into my life at that point and become my copilot.

Well, that's good to hear.

I cannot be blamed for his failure to keep his promises.

I'm not so sure God is to be blamed.

According to Jesus at least 99 out of every hundred people who go to heaven need no repentance. Otherwise what sense would it have made for Jesus to make a statement like this if every single human is a sinner who is in dire need of repentance?

You're the first person I've ever come across that interpreted the passage this way.

I don't think the point is saying how many people will or will not get into heaven. I believe the main point of all the parables in Luke 15 is to show that God desires to seek after the lost. It reveals God's heart to save the lost and how much it pleases God when people turn to him. The parables also is contrary to your claim that God is just out to punish people who do not believe in Him. Rather, he wishes for all to believe and accept him.

If I'm going to believe that Jesus is a truthful demigod, then why not believe what he says?

Yes, I believe what he says. But, I'm not so accepting of your interpretation of what he said.

And if 99 out of every hundred people need no repentance, then I don't think it's too far fetched for me to believe that I'm one of the 99 rather than the one person who needs repentance.

Jesus also said: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Mat 7:14

Personally, I actually believe the opposite of what you think. I don't think many will actually get into heaven, esp those that think they are following God.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Mat 7:22

If Jesus turns out to be true I'm sure he'll give me a big hug and say to me, "Sorry, no party for you, you're just one of the mundane 99% of righteous people like most of the others here, too bad you weren't more rowdy we would have thrown a party for you! But come on in anyway."

I think that's wishful thinking. In effect, it would be Jesus saying, "Hey, all that stuff I said while on earth, that was just bunk. What is the real truth is that everyone gets into heaven except for Hitler."

I have absolutely no reason to believe that all my sins have not been absolved long ago.

By believing in Jesus when you were a child? That would sound more like you're just keeping the lottery ticket in your back pocket in case you actually did have the winning number.

Why people continue to use Jesus as an excuse to try to convince other people that they should be feeling guilty about something or that they aren't "righteous enough for Jesus" is beyond me. Is that what Christianity is about?

Didn't say any of those.

What Christianity appears to be all about to me is just a cult where the members refuse to respect anyone as being "righteous" unless they join their cult.

Well, in Christianity, nobody is righteous.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Rom 3:10

Why should I accept your convoluted interpretations of these ancient myths? What's wrong with my interpretations?

If you accept them as myths, then your interpretations would be based on fiction. So, your interpretations would not have any correspondence with reality.

Are you a Protestant by any chance? I sure hope not because you don't seem to respect Protestantism. I hope your Catholic. At least then you can be partially excused, except your really should be leaving it up to the Pope to tell people what they need to do to be "saved".

Yes, I'm Protestant. But, I have Orthodox leanings.

I reject Christianity and the Bible because it's an immoral mythology that preaches all manner of immoral principles.

For instance?

Do you really want me to go into that again? Surely you've heard my complaints enough times on these forums.

I should have been more specific. What Bible passages preach immoral principles?

The very idea that there exists a supposedly righteous creator who only gives the following two options is itself absurd:

1. Do precise as he says and love him no matter what.
OR
2. Be tortured for eternity.

That's absurd.

To the human mind, I agree.

So I would like to politely bow out and request to simply be peacefully un-created.

That is a meaningless request. What does it mean to be "uncreated"?

There is no option to politely bow out of it.

I agree with you there.

[otseng]

Please either retract your claim that the universe's beginning is evidence that Christianity is true, or accept that science saying stars existed before the earth is evidence that Christianity is false.

You mean you don't want to hear my argument of why I believe the earth existed before the stars did?

[Divine Insight]

Pastors, as well as politicians, are fallible.

The Pope is supposed to be ordained by God. You shouldn't need any mediocre pastors. Especially if they are protestant pastors who have already protested against the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ.

There's the ABC guide to becoming a Christian. This is pretty much accepted by evangelical Christians.

Who cares about evangelical Christians? They don't speak for Jesus or God. If Jesus didn't write a guide to salvation then there isn't one. And we all know that Jesus didn't write anything. All we have about the man is hearsay rumors that we can't even know are trustworthy.

Christian salvation without Jesus? That's basing it on your own interpretation of one parable.

Why shouldn't I base things on my own interpretations? That's the whole idea behind Protestantism. The Protestants protested against anyone interpreting the Bible for them. I'm the ultimate Protestant.

Besides, I'm not basing anything one one parable. It's crystal clear to me that Jesus make it perfectly clear on many occasions that it's not necessary to believe in him. Although I'll grant you that the Gospels rumors are full of contradictory statements concerning what Jesus taught. But since all we have about Jesus are these contradictory hearsay rumors we need to pick and choose which parts make the most sense to us.

I don't believe that Jesus was an egotistical pig who demanded that anyone worship him. That doesn't even remotely sound like the type of person Jesus was.

Also, having been a born again Christian I even officially repented from my childhood sins and asked Jesus to come into my life as he had promised to do. At that point in time and sins I may have had prior to that are forgiven, and Jesus is supposed to come into my life at that point and become my copilot.

Well, that's good to hear.

Why is that good to hear? Why should you even care? Surely if God damns someone you shouldn't be sad about that. You should rejoice that God damned a dangerous person who deserved to be damned. You should never be sad when a soul is damned, because that would imply that God had damned someone who didn't deserve it.

So it would be silly to care about anyone who is damned by this God.

I cannot be blamed for his failure to keep his promises.

I'm not so sure God is to be blamed.

Well, I can't imagine why he lies in the first place. Why did he lie to Mother Teresa and billions upon billions of other Christians. Even those who "keep the faith" know very well that Jesus isn't keeping anything that he had promised.

John 14:
[12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
[13] And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
[14] If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Do you believe on Jesus?

If so then by words attributed to him you should be able to even greater works than he had done. And anything whatsoever that you ask in his name he will do it.

Can you heal people like Jesus did?

If not, how to you explain that? Is it because you don't really believe on Jesus? Or could it be that the whole fable is just a false rumor?

When I say that Jesus was a liar I am only being honest, just as Mother Teresa was being honest. If we have to lie for Jesus then he's not much of a God.

According to Jesus at least 99 out of every hundred people who go to heaven need no repentance. Otherwise what sense would it have made for Jesus to make a statement like this if every single human is a sinner who is in dire need of repentance?

You're the first person I've ever come across that interpreted the passage this way.

I expect that if the Bible is truth then it should say what it means and means what it says. And that's what it says. How do you twist it into something it doesn't say?

I don't think the point is saying how many people will or will not get into heaven. I believe the main point of all the parables in Luke 15 is to show that God desires to seek after the lost. It reveals God's heart to save the lost and how much it pleases God when people turn to him. The parables also is contrary to your claim that God is just out to punish people who do not believe in Him. Rather, he wishes for all to believe and accept him.

But that's not even remotely close to what the verse actually said.

It says:

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Why in the world would Jesus claim that there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance if there is no such thing as just persons who need no repentance? That would make absolutely no sense at all.

So I totally reject your so-called "interpretation" that clearly has nothing at all to even do with what Jesus supposedly said here. It appears to me that you are the one who is trying hard to make like there can be no such thing as a just person who needs to repentance. But it's crystal clear to me that Jesus was saying that the vast majority of people need no repentance. On the order of 99%.

This actually makes sense too if we look at the violent crime rates. Only about 1% of the population commit violent crimes. Therefore about 99% of the people are most likely just persons.

So not only does it appear that Jesus said this, but it also appears to fit in with known facts. In fact, the standard Christian claim that all men are sinners (which they get from Paul) doesn't make any sense at all. We know that's false.

If I'm going to believe that Jesus is a truthful demigod, then why not believe what he says?

Yes, I believe what he says. But, I'm not so accepting of your interpretation of what he said.

Well, there's enough fodder in the Gospels rumors I could make a hateful Jesus if I really wanted to as well. But I see no point in doing that. I can't imagine why people don't take the most positive thing they can from this religion.

Why demand that you are in dire need of salvation when it's not necessary?

I mean you can find that in the teachings of Paul. But Paul isn't Jesus. So why even bother with Paul at all?

And if 99 out of every hundred people need no repentance, then I don't think it's too far fetched for me to believe that I'm one of the 99 rather than the one person who needs repentance.

Jesus also said: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Mat 7:14

Yep, the Bible is filled with contradictions, that's for sure.

But don't forget too that if you accept this then Jesus didn't bring "Good News". On the contrary he brought very sad and horrible news. I mean, even if you personally believe that you might quality to be one of the "few", it still should be bad news to hear that the vast majority of souls that your creator had created will be damned.

That also doesn't say much for the success rate of the creator of souls.

Personally, I actually believe the opposite of what you think. I don't think many will actually get into heaven, esp those that think they are following God.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Mat 7:22

Yep, that's in there too.

But again, where is the "Good News" in that?

All this means is that many people who believe that they will be saved are going to be in for a real shocker on Judgement Day when they suddenly realized that even thought they thought they had accepted Jesus he's going to be rejecting them!

Whoa!

Imagine how many Christians will feel betrayed by Jesus! The God they were told they could place their TRUST in.

Moreover, how can you be so sure that Jesus won't reject you? Maybe the gate is a lot more narrow than you realize? Have you given away all your money and possessions to the poor? Have you abandoned your family to go out and preach the Gospels. Are you at least trying to go around casting demons out of people and healing the sick?

Are you sure Jesus isn't going to reject you?

If Jesus turns out to be true I'm sure he'll give me a big hug and say to me, "Sorry, no party for you, you're just one of the mundane 99% of righteous people like most of the others here, too bad you weren't more rowdy we would have thrown a party for you! But come on in anyway."

I think that's wishful thinking. In effect, it would be Jesus saying, "Hey, all that stuff I said while on earth, that was just bunk. What is the real truth is that everyone gets into heaven except for Hitler."

Well, like I say, are you doing all the things Jesus said people should do? Do you have any money in the bank? Do you own possessions? If so, maybe you should think twice about the "bunk" Jesus was teaching.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that all my sins have not been absolved long ago.

By believing in Jesus when you were a child? That would sound more like you're just keeping the lottery ticket in your back pocket in case you actually did have the winning number.

I don't believe in a hateful Jesus. In fact, I'm 100% certain that Jesus was not the demigod son of the God of Abraham. So I'm not worried about pleasing Jesus anymore than I am worried about pleasing Zeus.

But if we're going to pretend that Jesus was a loving God, then why not at least do that?

Why make him out to be a hateful monster who is chomping at the bit to cast everyone into damnation for every little petty thing?

Why people continue to use Jesus as an excuse to try to convince other people that they should be feeling guilty about something or that they aren't "righteous enough for Jesus" is beyond me. Is that what Christianity is about?

Didn't say any of those.

Well so far you have suggested that the only way to salvation is through Jesus.

You have also pretty much suggested that everyone needs salvation without exception.

And you have even posted a verse from the Bible where Jesus will be rejecting people who actually believe in him and thought they would be saved.

Sure sounds to me like you're trying to make a case that people typically aren't righteous enough for Jesus.

What Christianity appears to be all about to me is just a cult where the members refuse to respect anyone as being "righteous" unless they join their cult.

Well, in Christianity, nobody is righteous.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Rom 3:10

Paul.

Paul preached all that kind of garbage. But none of that came from the Gospels where Jesus is supposedly quoted. On the contrary Jesus said the following:

Matt.5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Why would he tell people to be perfect like God if he knew that was impossible?

Why should I accept your convoluted interpretations of these ancient myths? What's wrong with my interpretations?

If you accept them as myths, then your interpretations would be based on fiction. So, your interpretations would not have any correspondence with reality.

It doesn't matter whether they are true or myth. The story is the same.

Are you a Protestant by any chance? I sure hope not because you don't seem to respect Protestantism. I hope your Catholic. At least then you can be partially excused, except your really should be leaving it up to the Pope to tell people what they need to do to be "saved".

Yes, I'm Protestant. But, I have Orthodox leanings.

Well, if you're Protestant then you should respect my protestant right to interpret the Holy Scriptures however I see fit. That's the whole idea behind Protestantism. It's a protest against the Catholic Church and a central Pope who interprets the scriptures for everyone else. The Protestants said, "No way!". They don't want some mortal man interpreting scriptures for them, they want to retain the right to read the scriptures for themselves and let the Holy Spirit guide them to an understanding.

So you and I are both Protestants then. And my interpretation of the Bible is that the Old Testament is absolute worthless mythology. This is what the "Holy Spirit" has guided me to understand about the Old Testament.

In the New Testament I sees Jesus as a Jewish Mayahana Buddhist who tried to bring higher moral values into his home religion of Judaism and unfortunately got himself crucified in the processes. He was no demigod, but he was a spiritual man who tried to knock some sense into his fellow Jews. Unfortunately all that came out of it was "Christianity" that that ended up just using Jesus' name as fodder for religious bigotry on a grand scale.

That's my Protestant interpretation guided by the "Holy Spirit".

And so as a fellow Protestant, you should understand and respect why I don't need anyone to interpret the Bible for me. I turn to the "Holy Spirit" for that.

And the Holy Spirit has ultimately guided me away from the Hebrew mythology entirely and revealed to me Taoism which is far more in harmony with the "Holy Spirit".

So now I guess you can say that I'm a "Protestant Taoist".

The very idea that there exists a supposedly righteous creator who only gives the following two options is itself absurd:

1. Do precise as he says and love him no matter what.
OR
2. Be tortured for eternity.

That's absurd.

To the human mind, I agree.

Well a God that is absurd to the human mind is then indeed absurd by human standards.

So I would like to politely bow out and request to simply be peacefully un-created.

That is a meaningless request. What does it mean to be "uncreated"?

Surely a creator would know.

I'll settle for simply ceasing to exist.

There is no option to politely bow out of it.

I agree with you there.[/quote]

But apparently you don't agree with me that this is unrighteousness.

Why should a creator create a living soul and only give it two options, either obey the creator or be tortured. If our children were doing that to their pets we'd probably intervene and tell the child not to be mean to their pets.

A creator should at least give the objects of its creation the option of being un-created. (i.e. placed back into the state they were in before they were created.) If that simply means to cease to exist, then fine.

That would be my choice if the Christian God were true. But like I say that choice is not available in that mythology. This is why we can know that this is indeed a manmade mythology and it has nothing to do with any genuinely righteous creator because a genuinely righteous creator would have included the option to politely bow out.

The fact that this option is missing entirely and not even remotely allowed, is what makes the religion so "hateful" and unrighteous.

Hebrew mythology is a hateful religion. No question about it.

Righteous wasn't even in the mentality of the people who wrote these wicked tales.

Just look at the story of Adam and Eve. God curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth as a punishment. So why didn't Eve simply say to God, 'Fine I won't have any children then"?

She didn't say that because the men who wrote these fables were intelligent enough to even realized that this could be an option.

If there truly was an Eve she probably would have been smarter than the bozos who made up these stories.

[FarWanderer]

Please either retract your claim that the universe's beginning is evidence that Christianity is true, or accept that science saying stars existed before the earth is evidence that Christianity is false.

You mean you don't want to hear my argument of why I believe the earth existed before the stars did?

On the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

[wiploc]

We're after your explanation, so we'll have to let you set the definition. There's no point in asking me to guess what definitions you want to use.

So, in answer to your question, I'm happy to accept whichever answer you prefer.

Objective evil would be something that would be considered universally evil.

This confuses me. It would have to be considered evil to be objective? I thought the test of objectivity was that it didn't matter what people thought.

You're placing too much emphasis on considered. Let me rephrase it. Objective evil is something that is universally evil.

That helps, thanks. So if it is objectively evil for a man to kill, then it is objectively evil for a god to kill. If sex is objectively evil before marriage, then it is objectively evil after marriage. If slavery is objectively evil now, it was objectively evil in biblical times too.

Do I have this right?

Can we have exceptions, like "Thou shalt not kill, except in self defense?"

I think "You shall not murder" is a better translation.

I like to reason in the concrete; I need examples, hypotheticals. If "Thou shalt not kill were an objective evil, then there could be no exceptions for, say, self defense? I'm asking this to see if I grasp your use of "absolute."

I need to ask this because your association of absoluteness and objectiveness is foreign to me. I think that sea level, for instance, is objective, even though it is not everywhere the same.

But I'm not arguing that I'm right and you're wrong. I just want to grasp your concept. I'm eager to get past this definitional part so I can hear your argument.

As for exceptions, I do not think there would be any for things considered to be objective evil.

And you seem to be saying that (if there was a god) the Holocaust would be only subjectively evil because only one country did it.

Right now, I'm not even introducing god into the equation yet. I'm just trying to define objective and subjective evil.

I don't see how that's helpful. You said something confusing about cultures and countries, and I'm trying to dope out the meaning. Are we sure, on the grounds that only one country did it, that the Holocaust was not objectively evil?

Or were you trying to get at something else, and I've missed it completely. Help me out.

Are you saying that if god said to rape your daughters on Tuesdays, that would be subjectively good, but if he said to do it every day then would be objective because the application is universal?

Again, I'm not even mentioning about god yet.

Again, that's not helpful. You're the one who said their can't be objective morality without god. That's why I brought a god into the hypothetical. But let's leave the god out. The question stands: can it be objectively right (or wrong) to do something on one day of the week if it is not objectively right (or wrong) to do the same thing on another day of the week?

I'm after this "universal" concept that you have introduced as (I think) a sine qua non (without which not) of objectivity. I'm testing my grasp of the concept. If I understand it correctly, Jehovah (or Minnie Mouse, if you prefer not to talk about gods) cannot have one objective moral system for Old Testament times, and another for New Testament times. Those rules would have to be subjective because they are not universal.

Do I have that right?

[instantc]

Where have you ever seen any indication of "objective morality"?

In my moral experience, some things appear to be in fact wrong, no matter who's doing them. Similarly, as in my logical experience some things appear to be logical and other things appear to be illogical, nothing subjective about that.

All morality is subjective opinion, and Hebrew mythology is no exception to the this truth.

You keep insisting this, but I haven't seen any justification for this claim. Why should we not trust our moral experience, just like we trust our sensory experience?

So far you have given just one argument, namely that in your opinion people's moral experiences don't correspond to each other in the way that their sensory experiences do. With regard to the most basic moral values, this is simply not true. I believe that practically everybody would agree that in their moral experience torturing children for fun is wrong. That's an example of such a basic moral value that I'm talking about. Thus, it seems to me that with regard to these uniformly accepted basic values, there's no need to doubt our experience any more than there's a need to doubt our sensory experience of the physical world.

If someone wishes to deny the existence of the very basic moral values, I don't find them any different from those who deny the existence of the physical world altogether, namely hard solipsists. I can't argue against either one from the evidentialist point of view, but it seems that they are both just purposefully missing the very foundations of reality.

[FarWanderer]

Here's my take on objective vs. subjective morality:

Objective morality is real, but it needs to be stipulated: Moral in regards to what?

-Humans killing humans is immoral in regards to humans.
-Life killing life is immoral in regards to life.
-Humans killing non-human life is not immoral in regards to humans, but it is immoral in regards to life.
-Arians killing Jews is not immoral in regards to Arians, but it is immoral in regards to humans.

My experience is that when morality comes up in philosophical discussions, people are usually referring to morality in regards to humans. However, in practice I find people to be much shiftier. Few people would find torturing a dog, for example, to be an entirely morally neutral act.

[otseng]

I'm half serious and half joking. Actually, currently I do believe the "earth" was made before the stars. But, I don't think science will actually ever accept that.

Why should science ever accept that?

Like I said, I don't think it ever would.

Are you not aware that it has already been scientifically determined that all of the heavier elements required to make a rocky planet like the earth were all manufactured in the stars that have gone nova in the past?

Yes, I'm familiar with the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.

So the only way that science would ever accept this claim would be to confess that science is all wrong and has no clue whatsoever about the physical universe. And why would they do that?

There is one main thing that I think is wrong with cosmology -- the assumption of the principle of mediocrity. If this assumption is incorrect, it would totally up end current cosmology.

So when you make a statement like the one you've made above, it certainly appears that you are appealing to extreme irrationality in an effort to support an ancient mythology.

Actually, several years ago, I would not have made a statement like this. But, it's actually the physical evidence that leads me to consider this as a strong possibility.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 458 by otseng]

The mediocrity principle cannot be wrong because it's simply a truth of probability. Do you mean to say that the mediocrity principle applied to the earth may be wrong? Also what evidence has come up in the past few years that makes you believe the earth is special?

[otseng]

The Pope is supposed to be ordained by God. You shouldn't need any mediocre pastors. Especially if they are protestant pastors who have already protested against the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ.

Who says Roman Catholics are the exclusive body of Christ?

If Jesus didn't write a guide to salvation then there isn't one.

Why would it need to be written down? Are we to dismiss someone because they did not write anything down?

Why shouldn't I base things on my own interpretations?

You are free to have any interpretation you want. But, it's highly unlikely your interpretation is correct if you are the only one to have such a view.

I don't believe that Jesus was an egotistical pig who demanded that anyone worship him. That doesn't even remotely sound like the type of person Jesus was.

No, he did not demand it. But, he did not reject it either if someone did.

Jhn 20:28-29
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

You should rejoice that God damned a dangerous person who deserved to be damned. You should never be sad when a soul is damned, because that would imply that God had damned someone who didn't deserve it.

No, I do not feel this way. And I do not believe God feels this way either (as pointed out in the Luke 15 parables mentioned earlier).

If so then by words attributed to him you should be able to even greater works than he had done. And anything whatsoever that you ask in his name he will do it.

I think the key phrase is "in my name". I do not think it's simply appending "Jesus" to the end of a prayer and that would magically make anything we ask for to happen. Actually, it's pretty obvious that is not the case. ("One million dollars appear on my desk… in Jesus name." Nope, nothing happened.)

John 15:7 says, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." Rather, I think it is asking out of a relationship with God and his word and for God to be glorified.

Jesus himself experienced this when going to the cross. His own desire was not to die on the cross, but he submitted to God's will.

"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Mat 26:39

When we go through difficult times, our natural desire is to want for it to go away. We earnestly pray for it to end or to be resolved. Many even experience a crisis of faith when things don't go their way after pleading with God. A child dies. A spouse leaves. The abuse doesn't stop. Then they blame God for not answering their prayer and then abandon the faith.

This is the classic problem of suffering/evil.

There is no simple answer for this. But, it doesn't mean there are no answers. However, it will take a while to fully address it.

Can you heal people like Jesus did?

Actually, I don't believe that anybody can heal another. Only God can heal a person.

just as Mother Teresa was being honest.

What are you referring to?

I expect that if the Bible is truth then it should say what it means and means what it says. And that's what it says. How do you twist it into something it doesn't say?

However, it doesn't say, "99% of the population of humans will enter heaven." If it did say that, then sure I'd agree with you.

Why in the world would Jesus claim that there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance if there is no such thing as just persons who need no repentance? That would make absolutely no sense at all.

I think he was using irony here. I believe he's referring to people who think they are righteous and good and don't need to repent (like the older brother of the prodigal son).

It appears to me that you are the one who is trying hard to make like there can be no such thing as a just person who needs to repentance.

Well, not just me, but every Christian I've run across has the view that nobody is just and righteous.

In fact, the standard Christian claim that all men are sinners (which they get from Paul) doesn't make any sense at all.

Jesus said, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Mat 5:20)

The scribes and Pharisees were considered the most religious (and good) people. So, Jesus himself disputes your claim that 99% of people will enter heaven.

Why demand that you are in dire need of salvation when it's not necessary?

Like I said, if you're sinless, you don't need salvation.

But Paul isn't Jesus. So why even bother with Paul at all?

Are you just singling out Paul, or also all the other NT authors?

Yep, the Bible is filled with contradictions, that's for sure.

That's why interpretations cannot just be based on a single passage. Interpretations will need to be harmonized with the entire Bible. If an interpretation is contradicted by other passages, then it means the interpretation is incorrect. It does not mean that your interpretation proves the Bible is wrong.

But don't forget too that if you accept this then Jesus didn't bring "Good News".

For some, it would be good news. Perhaps for many it would not be.

That also doesn't say much for the success rate of the creator of souls.

Yeah, free will is a tricky thing.

Moreover, how can you be so sure that Jesus won't reject you? Maybe the gate is a lot more narrow than you realize? Have you given away all your money and possessions to the poor? Have you abandoned your family to go out and preach the Gospels. Are you at least trying to go around casting demons out of people and healing the sick?

My hope is not in myself. It's not in my goodness or my good deeds or how many times I've attended church. All of my hope is placed on what Jesus did on the cross for me. That's not to say that we shouldn't do good things, but our salvation does not rest on anything that we can do.

Are you sure Jesus isn't going to reject you?

I'll leave it to God to judge.

Well, like I say, are you doing all the things Jesus said people should do? Do you have any money in the bank? Do you own possessions?

Actually, he only said this to a few people. He did not tell everyone to sell all that they have.

Why make him out to be a hateful monster who is chomping at the bit to cast everyone into damnation for every little petty thing?

Who's doing that?

Why people continue to use Jesus as an excuse to try to convince other people that they should be feeling guilty about something or that they aren't "righteous enough for Jesus" is beyond me. Is that what Christianity is about?

Didn't say any of those.

Well so far you have suggested that the only way to salvation is through Jesus.

Yes, I believe that (with the exception for sinless people).

But, that's different from making people "feeling guilty about something or that they aren't righteous enough for Jesus" is what Christianity is all about.

Why would he tell people to be perfect like God if he knew that was impossible?

Yes, he knew it was impossible… for humans to do it.

Why should I accept your convoluted interpretations of these ancient myths? What's wrong with my interpretations?

If you accept them as myths, then your interpretations would be based on fiction. So, your interpretations would not have any correspondence with reality.

It doesn't matter whether they are true or myth. The story is the same.

I think it does matter. You can't say that your interpretation of something is true if you base it on a fiction/myth.

So you and I are both Protestants then. And my interpretation of the Bible is that the Old Testament is absolute worthless mythology. This is what the "Holy Spirit" has guided me to understand about the Old Testament.

Protestants do not view the Old Testament is absolute worthless mythology.

Also, are you also saying the New Testament is as well?

In the New Testament I sees Jesus as a Jewish Mayahana Buddhist who tried to bring higher moral values into his home religion of Judaism and unfortunately got himself crucified in the processes.

Actually, I don't see how he preached Buddhism at all. What exactly did he teach that was Buddhist?

Well a God that is absurd to the human mind is then indeed absurd by human standards.

If it's absurd to the human mind, then would any human mind have created the Bible?

So I would like to politely bow out and request to simply be peacefully un-created.

That is a meaningless request. What does it mean to be "uncreated"?

Surely a creator would know.

Not if it's meaningless.

I'll settle for simply ceasing to exist.

You mean dying? Well, unfortunately, dying doesn't get you out of it either. As a matter of fact, it would only quicken it.

Or do you mean annihilation of the soul as well as the body? That doesn't seem to be an option either.

But apparently you don't agree with me that this is unrighteousness.

Correct, I don't agree with you there.

Why should a creator create a living soul and only give it two options, either obey the creator or be tortured.

Don't know, I'm not God.

That would be my choice if the Christian God were true. But like I say that choice is not available in that mythology. This is why we can know that this is indeed a manmade mythology and it has nothing to do with any genuinely righteous creator because a genuinely righteous creator would have included the option to politely bow out.

Actually, I'd say it's a reason that it is not a manmade religion. If I were to create a religion, I'd create more savory options than just either heaven or hell too.

God curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth as a punishment. So why didn't Eve simply say to God, 'Fine I won't have any children then"?

Women know full well ahead of time now that there will be pain in childbirth, but they still go through with it.