The Prodigal Son for debate

[Divine Insight]

I just watched the video posted by Otseng in the Holy Huddle forum. It's a story I'm well familiar with.

However there appears to be a grave contradiction in this story. The obedient son who had become jealous at the end of the story was supposedly upset that his father had killed the fatted calf to celebrate the return of the prodigal son.

Buy then the father turns to is righteous son and says, "Everything I have is yours".

How is this not a contradiction? According to the story the righteous son was upset because his father wouldn't even give him a goat to share with his friends. (see video @ 3:15) But now the father is claiming that everything he has also belongs to his righteous son.

Is the son only just now being told that everything his father has is also his free for the taking? If that's true then what's up with him complaining that his father never gave him so much as a young goat?

These are the kinds of self-contradictions that tend to always plague the Biblical stories.

Sure, from a purely moral perspective, we can make some kind of moral justification for this tale as being nothing more than a moral parable. However, that doesn't change the fact that the parable contains serious contradictions.

The righteous Son in this story apparently felt that his father would not permit him to take a young goat and share it with his friends. In fact, the mere fact that the righteous son was so upset about this implies that the son had actually requested this in the past only to have his father deny him.

So the story appears to me to have some serious self-contradictions associated with it.

Question for debate: How is this parable not self-contradictory?

Note to Otseng: Great video production by the way. It's not your fault that the original story contains these contradictory inconsistencies. If what the father claimed was true (that he would deny nothing from the righteous son), then why would the righteous son have any reason to be jealous of the prodigal son?

The story shoots itself in its own foot with this extreme contradiction concerning the righteous Son. He was upset about something that supposedly didn't even exist. Supposedly he could have had a young goat to share with his friends anytime he wanted and apparently just didn't know. This seems a bit problematic to me.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 19 by Zzyzx]

It truly is difficult to understand how Christian apologists can deny what the Bible say day after day after day, when these things are not only written out in black and white, but they have even been numbered by chapter and verse for centuries.

Yet they still act like these things aren't written in the Bible and accuse non-theists for not understanding the Bible when the real truth is that the theists are just in flat-out denial of what the Bible actually has to say.

I have no clue what they are attempting to defend. Because they sure aren't defending the Bible.

[otseng]

The point was that he was complaining the father threw a massive party for his "sinful" son, but wouldn't even recognize the "righteous" son with even a small picnic.

Sounds like a legitimate complaint to me. Why would a father throw a party for the sinful son and not for the righteous son? I mean, it was great that the sinful son recognize the error of his ways. But that doesn't justify celebrating his behavior.

I like Keller's insight into the story of the prodigal son.

https://timothykeller.com/books/the-prodigal-god

Many churches are filled with people like the older son. They act pious and seemingly obey all the commandments. They never go out and sin like the younger son. But, it's no better than the behavior of the younger son living in his prodigal lifestyle. Neither the lifestyle of the younger son nor the older son are pleasing to God.

So, what does please God? It is simply recognizing and admitting that we are unworthy. We cannot do anything that would cause God to accept us. Whether we are the younger brother or even the older brother, we are not worthy. We come to God in absolute humility and say like the publican in Luke 18:13:

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner."

So yes, I would suggest that it is the description of Jesus in the Bible that justifies expecting Jesus to be "infinitely wise", or at the very least far wiser than any mortal man.

Far wiser than mortal man is not the same as infinitely wise.

For crying out loud all he did was make some extremely stupid choices and was even begging for forgiveness sobbing on his knees when he came back home. Who wouldn't forgive their child for having made such a stupid mistake?

It wasn't just a stupid mistake.

When the younger son wanted his inheritance, in effect he was saying his father is dead to him. It was a complete rejection of his father and the only thing he cared about was money and his own pleasure. He might as well have said to his father, "I wish you were dead. As a matter of fact, you are dead to me. Just give me my money now and I'll go live my own life as I want to live it."

In the Eastern culture, this would be utterly shameful and one wouldn't expect a father to receive that son back into the family ever again. The son would be considered dead to the father.

But, in the story, it wasn't the son grovelling for forgiveness that made his father change his mind. The father had never rejected the son. He had been looking every day for his son to come back. In Luke 15:20, the father saw him while he was a great way off.

Also, his father didn't reply to him that he would have gladly given the older son a young goad had the son simply asked for it. He simply told him at that point that everything that is the father's is also the son's. And this brings up the confusing question of why the older son didn't already know this?

His "righteous" behavior is not anything worth celebrating. Just as the unrighteous behavior of the younger son is not worth celebrating.

The true reward is also not a party, whether with a fatted calf or a goat. According to the story, the true reward is being with the father. The father said, "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine." This is something the older son never seemed to recognize. All he saw was slaving for the father all these years.

Luke 15:29 (NIV)
But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders.'

I'm really glad you brought this up, because this is another extreme problem I have with almost all the stories and parables in the Bible. None of them ever seem to apply to me. I wouldn't consider either of these two sons to be representative of me. So there's nothing in this story that would even apply to me.

Well, I think it has univeral applicability.

I think you try to be a good person. You don't hurt others, you obey the law, you might not even ever sin. This is just like the older son. But, the story shows that this is not anything worth recognizing or celebrating.

Well, there you go. You're identifying with one of the characters in the story. So apparently you'd be jealous when your brother came home. Apparently you can identify with the motivations for jealousy here.

Jealousy is perhaps not the best description. Fairness would be better. How is it fair that someone who squanders everything is then given a massive party, where someone who never disobeys not having a picnic? Or to illustrate it in a way that many non-Christians like to point out. How would it be fair for someone who is a mass murderer to repent on his deathbed to go to heaven while someone who is a nice guy all his life and doesn't accept Jesus will go to hell?

This is one of the greatest problems for me concerning these biblical stories. I'm instantly thinking, "But wait, where am I in this story? I'm neither they older son nor the younger son". There's nothing in this story that I can identify with.

Though I can identify with the sons, the main point that I get out of the story is the heart of the father. He is always looking out for people to come to him in humility. He doesn't reject people because of the sins they've commmitted. He doesn't accept people because of all the good deeds they've done. He accepts people when they come to him in utter rejection of self and dependence on him.

For example, do you really need Jesus to tell you not to stone to death an adulteress?

I was watching Les Misérables. The character Javert illustrated the dilemma of upholding the law or demonstrating grace. I don't think it's such an easy question to answer.

I just don't see any way the theology could be saved at that point. You have Jesus and Yahweh disagreeing on what they expect humans to even do.

Well, I don't necessarily see it as disagreeing. The commonality is the agreement that sin is bad and it requires punishment and/or consequences. In the Old Testament, the consequence would be the death of the perpetrator. With Jesus, the consequence is the death of himself.

[Divine Insight]

Many churches are filled with people like the older son. They act pious and seemingly obey all the commandments. They never go out and sin like the younger son. But, it's no better than the behavior of the younger son living in his prodigal lifestyle. Neither the lifestyle of the younger son nor the older son are pleasing to God.

I believe I had already addressed this. The story is quite limited. You either identify with the prodigal son, or you see the older son as being insincere and identify with him. Or you don't identify with either in which case you should feel left out of the story.

When I addressed this before I pointed out that this isn't unique in biblical stories. Basically the only three Biblical character I have ever identified with are Moses, Noah, and Jesus. And even all three of those had character flaws I'd rather not be associated with. So I'm wondering why "my Creator" didn't include characters in his book to humanity that I could identify with?

All I see are apologies for stories that have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't go to church pretending to be pious. Neither do I run off squandering money or resources on ignorant useless things.

So where are the stories that I'm supposed to identify with? And if there are none, then why is that? Isn't this book supposed to be from "my Creator" too?

So, what does please God? It is simply recognizing and admitting that we are unworthy. We cannot do anything that would cause God to accept us.

And I'm supposed to enthusiastically embrace the idea that there is nothing I could do that would cause God to accept me? Why in the world would I ever want to believe such a dismal negative thing as a matter of pure faith?

The only way I would have to deal with that situation is if it was thrust upon me without my consent or approval and there as nothing I could do about it. But surely you can see where that situation would be nothing to rejoice about?

As I have often said on these forums. If Christianity is true then that's the most depressing thing I could imagine.

What's the "Good News". That this God that I am unworthy of and incapable of pleasing would spare me death if I simply bow down before and confess that he's right.

To be perfectly honest with you Otseng, I think I would just as soon die if that's the case. In fact, I think this is why Christianity invented eternal punishment in hell. They started to realize that just plain dying wouldn't be compelling. So instead they invented the concept of "Everlasting Punishment" for those who refuse to comply.

I have to ask myself. Does this sound like a religion designed by a loving intelligent God? Or does it sound more like something men would make up to try to get people to obey the authority of their man-made religion?

For me, the latter is the only conclusion that makes any sense.

Far wiser than mortal man is not the same as infinitely wise.

Well, I don't see where the parables associated with Jesus were even wiser than those made up by mortal men.

When the younger son wanted his inheritance, in effect he was saying his father is dead to him. It was a complete rejection of his father and the only thing he cared about was money and his own pleasure. He might as well have said to his father, "I wish you were dead. As a matter of fact, you are dead to me. Just give me my money now and I'll go live my own life as I want to live it."

At this rate it won't be long before we're going to have to claim that the older son was Satan himself.

In the Eastern culture, this would be utterly shameful and one wouldn't expect a father to receive that son back into the family ever again. The son would be considered dead to the father.

It seems that people of all cultures love to hate each other, even fathers and sons.

Fortunately this isn't true of everyone. And that's the problem I have Otseng. It's not that some of these Biblical parables might apply to a few bad apples, but in Christianity they try to make out like these parables are speaking about every single human being.

Just like you said above,...

So, what does please God? It is simply recognizing and admitting that we are unworthy. We cannot do anything that would cause God to accept us.

It's an extremely masochistic religion in terms of any kind of self-esteem. Don't dare think that you are worthy of God. How extremely arrogant that would be.

In fact, is that true of the older son in the Prodigal Son story? Was there absolutely nothing he could possibly have done to please his father? Is so, then it would be no wonder that he's so frustrated. Who would want to live with a father who is impossible to please and will always consider you to be unworthy of him.

It's just not an inviting scenario as far as I can see. I would want to live with a God who views me as unworthy to even be in his presence. As I said before, I would actually prefer death. Sometimes death is better than life. Patrick Henry is often quoted, "Give me liberty or give me death". And that's supposed to be a very positive quote for freedom and against oppressive fascism.

Ironically Christianity has a God who is apparently an oppressive fascist. And we're supposed to rejoice about that? I personally think that would be a nightmare existence if it were true.

I think you try to be a good person. You don't hurt others, you obey the law, you might not even ever sin. This is just like the older son. But, the story shows that this is not anything worth recognizing or celebrating.

Well, to begin with, I'm not looking for any rewards or celebrations. If its possible for humans to have eternal life I don't think that should be considered a "Reward". In fact, in Christianity it isn't a reward anyway. It's nothing more than undeserved amnesty for anyone whose willing to confess that they don't deserve it.

Isn't that a rather strange basis for a theology?

Not only this, but this would then mean that Christianity has absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. To the contrary, all Christianity would amount to is admitting that we're all immoral and could never be moral even if we wanted to be.

So we're in a real pickle. We would then be in a situation that would impossible to escape. All we could do is confess that we are unworthy of a God that we could never please. And what's the idea behind that? When we go to God's Kingdom what's going to happen then?

Is God going to magically bestow us with an ability to please him? And if so, then why didn't he just do that in the first place with Adam and Eve?

Or is he going to turn us into robots who have no free will and just force us to please him at that point? That certainty doesn't sound very inviting.

Where's the rationale behind all these claims and accusations made by Christian theology?

If we're unworthy of God and its impossible to please him, then what's going to happen when we go to heaven? How is that original situation going to change?

It seems to me that this theology has never been thought through to any rational end result.

Jealousy is perhaps not the best description. Fairness would be better. How is it fair that someone who squanders everything is then given a massive party, where someone who never disobeys not having a picnic? Or to illustrate it in a way that many non-Christians like to point out. How would it be fair for someone who is a mass murderer to repent on his deathbed to go to heaven while someone who is a nice guy all his life and doesn't accept Jesus will go to hell?

Well, to begin with the whole thing about "Fairness" seems to me to be an immature mindset (i.e. a way that only young children might think). Why should a mature adult care whether someone else gets recognition and they don't?

You're familiar with the Eastern Religions. Basically what we are talking about here is a worldview of the ego. Once we mature to the point of getting over the ego these kinds of issues seem silly.

The last thing I care about is being recognized or rewarded with attention. I mean, it's nice when someone appreciates my work. But I'm certainty not going to get all bent out of shape if they like someone else's work better.

In fact, it seems to me that a lot of arguments for Christianity are based on this kind of childish and egotistical worldview. It seems to treat all humans like as if they are fighting with each other over who will get the larger scoop of ice cream. This may be true of the masses, but it's certainly not true of everyone. Some people couldn't care less who gets the bigger scoop of ice cream.

Though I can identify with the sons, the main point that I get out of the story is the heart of the father. He is always looking out for people to come to him in humility. He doesn't reject people because of the sins they've commmitted. He doesn't accept people because of all the good deeds they've done. He accepts people when they come to him in utter rejection of self and dependence on him.

I agree, the parable does indeed address the concept of the ego.

Being familiar with the Eastern religions you probably know the importance of recognizing that we are not our ego. In fact, in many Eastern religions that recognition alone is the "enlightenment". That's when you have been "born again" and are no longer viewing the world from the vantage point of ego.

Now you see the world as your true self. The entity that you truly are. Not the ego within that lusts for the bigger scoop of ice cream.

I actually understand the Eastern concept of coming to realize that we aren't the ego. In fact, Deepak Chopra wrote in one of his books a list of things that an enlightened person would know. One of them was a loss of any fear of death. When I read through his list I figured that I must be "enlightened" since everything he had on the list was true for me. I don't fear death. I don't want the bigger scoop of ice cream. And if I don't get credit or attention for anything it's not a problem. I don't lust for attention or recognition. In fact, like Richard Feynman, I'd prefer not to have the attention.

In fact, I believe that the real historical Jesus was most likely trying to teach the principles of Buddhism in his home culture. When Jesus spoke of being "born again in spirit", that's exactly what he was talking about. He was talking about losing the ego.

I just don't see any way the theology could be saved at that point. You have Jesus and Yahweh disagreeing on what they expect humans to even do.

Well, I don't necessarily see it as disagreeing. The commonality is the agreement that sin is bad and it requires punishment and/or consequences. In the Old Testament, the consequence would be the death of the perpetrator. With Jesus, the consequence is the death of himself.

I agree that crimes require consequences. I disagree that punishment is useful for much of anything. In fact, I hold that if punishment is required to teach someone something, then there's a far deeper problem. Either lack of communication, or some form of mental health problem. Both of which a God should be able to deal with and fix.

The idea that the consequences of our sins is the death of Jesus is, IMHO, a totally absurd notion. Since when does killing an innocent person justify or redeem the criminal acts of someone else?

Also, did Jesus die? No, not at all, in only three days he was raised from the dead and eventually ascended to heaven to have eternal life. Precisely the reward of a saint.

So how can it be said that Jesus died to pay for anyone's sins?

Any Christian who dies only to wake back up three days later and taken up into heaven would be thrilled. In fact, that precisely what they dream of.

So Jesus didn't pay the wages of sin for anyone. To the contrary he was rewarded eternal life.

So this theology doesn't even come close to making any sense. I mean, we reject Zeus because no God's were found on Mt. Olympus. But we accept Christianity because Jesus supposedly died for our sins, but was rewarded eternal life anyway?

It's a very poorly thought-out mythology.

I like the Eastern ideas better. Just drop the ego and you'll be truly happy within.

They don't even think in terms of eternal life as being a gift to a selected few. Instead they believe that everyone is reincarnated. The only differences is that the ones who have dropped the ego (became born again or "enlightened") are reincarnated in that awakened state so their next life is lived in an enlightened state of mind from birth. Whereas those who are till lost in the ego are reincarnated with that vantage point and view the next life through the lens of the ego as well.

In the Eastern philosophy it's all about seeing through the illusion of the ego.

In Christianity it's all about keeping the ego and confessing to God that you're worthless.

Think about that.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 22 by otseng]

So, what does please [Otseng's version of] God? It is simply recognizing and admitting that we are unworthy. We cannot do anything that would cause [Otseng's version of] God to accept us. Whether we are the younger brother or even the older brother, we are not worthy.

Precisely one of the numerous reasons I threw all Christianities in the trash can.

I found that Christian attitude insulting, demeaning, false and an enslaving mind and money trap.

Not ONE Christian has EVER demonstrated that their version of "God" exists anywhere other than in their own heads and on the pages of the sectarian literature.


Yet they preach as if they are preaching facts.


I do note that mentions of a non-mortal source for this tale are no longer in Otseng's response.


Member Mithrae tells us elsewhere that the biblical literature is NOT the Word of God/non-mortal source, yet Member Mithrae insits that member Mithrae is a Christian ...?


Member Sally is of the opinion that Christians can just make stuff up ... as they've always done. And THEY are the Christians who have got it RIGHT.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 22 by otseng]

So, what does please [Otseng's version of] God? It is simply recognizing and admitting that we are unworthy. We cannot do anything that would cause [Otseng's version of] God to accept us. Whether we are the younger brother or even the older brother, we are not worthy.

Precisely one of the numerous reasons I threw all Christianities in the trash can.

I found that Christian attitude insulting, demeaning, false and an enslaving mind and money trap.

Not ONE Christian has EVER demonstrated that their version of "God" exists anywhere other than in their own heads and on the pages of the sectarian literature.

It's so true. Christianity is emotional self-esteem masochism. Or sadism if it's being forced onto people as a "guilt trip".

It's a religion that is basically saying to us,....

"You are the disgusting unworthy slime of the earth! Get down on your knees and beg God to forgive you for being the worthless piece of garbage you are. Oh, and by the way, you need to believe this entirely on FAITH, because we have absolutely no evidence for our invisible God or that our demeaning accusations toward you have any truth or credibility at all."

What

I'm supposed to believe, as a matter of faith, that I'm the slime of the earth totally unworthy of my creator?

Even if that were true, who's fault would it be?

If I'm that disgusting and there's absolutely nothing I could possibly do to change that predicament, then how could that be my fault

I must have been created that way

That's the only way it could be true. Otherwise I should be able to become worthy if I had any true free will choice in the matter.

This is a religion that demands that everyone is so disgusting that their only hope for "salvation" and to please God, is to crawl under a rock and confess that they are the most disgusting entity that ever existed.

And this is a religion I'm supposed to want to believe as a matter of faith

You've got to be kidding me.

[1213]

…Their only consistency is that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him.

But where is that said in the Bible?

…
Exodus 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me" …

Thanks, I think this explains well why people have difficulties with the Bible. Divine Insight said “is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him�. And you say it is basically the same as Exodus 20:5. Now, I think they are not the same. It would be much easier to debate about what Bible actually says, instead of the claims some people make about the Bible. I understand if people think Divine Insights version of Bible is bad and wrong. It doesn’t mean automatically that also Bible is bad and wrong.

Also, I think it is not even true that the consistency is “that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him�.

[1213]

…It's not supposed to be about a God who is so utterly stupid that he can't even communicate clearly with the objects of his own creation.

I don’t see any reason to believe that God can’t communicate clearly. I can see that some people just don’t want to understand.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Christendom itself is in a state of extreme disagreement and confusion. So theists are in no position to be claiming that the Bible has a clear message when they can't even agree on what it says among themselves.

I don’t think the problem is in what Bible says. It seems to be in what people think it means. Without the added meanings that you also seem to give, there is really nothing unclear in the Bible message, at least not for me.

Their only consistency is that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him.

But where is that said in the Bible?

"Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me".

That is not same as “jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him�. Why did you not just say in the previous message that you have problem with “Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me"?

But why demand it? I think it is not really commanding, it is condition for something. Bible gives the Law and promises, if person keeps the Law he can have what is promised. You are free to do whatever you want, but then the promises are not for you.

I thought the commandment to love God is the greatest commandment of all?

Yes, because it means you keep the other commandment that is “love your neighbor as yourself�. But I think it is important to understand that it is conditional sentence. If you do so, you get what is promised, if not, you don’t get what is promised. To get the promised, you have to do so. But if you don’t want what is promised, you don’t have to do so.

But that's not what Christianity claims. To the contrary in Christianity no one can be righteous save for Jesus. If God wants righteous people he's out of luck. The only people eligible for heaven in Christianity are sinners who are willing to accept Jesus as their penal substitute so that they, as sinners, can be allowed into heaven even though they don't deserve to be there.

If “Christians� teach something that is not supported by Bible, I don’t think I have any reason to take it.

I'm not an atheist. I'm a Christian who realized that I was being duped by a false religion that isn't even a model of morality.

What do you think “Christian� means?

But that's what you are trying to do right now, and you're not succeeding either.

I am just answering to your questions. Form my point of view it seems you are the one who needs this, not God.

[Zzyzx]

.

…Their only consistency is that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him.

But where is that said in the Bible?

…
Exodus 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me" …

Thanks, I think this explains well why people have difficulties with the Bible.

Agree. Many of us are not inclined to worshiping an admittedly ‘Jealous God’ who threatens children for three or four generations.

We are also disinclined to make excuses or word play to defend such a ‘god’ (imaginary or not)

Divine Insight said “is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him�. And you say it is basically the same as Exodus 20:5. Now, I think they are not the same. It would be much easier to debate about what Bible actually says, instead of the claims some people make about the Bible.

Okay. The Bible actually says, “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.�

Perhaps some Apologists wish to make that into something OTHER than what it says.

I understand if people think Divine Insights version of Bible is bad and wrong. It doesn’t mean automatically that also Bible is bad and wrong.

Let’s read the actual words quoted above that are not DI’s ‘version’.

Also, I think it is not even true that the consistency is “that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him�.

That is exactly what the biblical statement says – verbatim quote. Do you wish to change it into something else?

[Divine Insight]

…Their only consistency is that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him.

But where is that said in the Bible?

…
Exodus 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me" …

Thanks, I think this explains well why people have difficulties with the Bible. Divine Insight said “is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him�. And you say it is basically the same as Exodus 20:5. Now, I think they are not the same. It would be much easier to debate about what Bible actually says, instead of the claims some people make about the Bible. I understand if people think Divine Insights version of Bible is bad and wrong. It doesn’t mean automatically that also Bible is bad and wrong.

Also, I think it is not even true that the consistency is “that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him�.

The problem with this kind of apology for Christianity is that it actually vindicates me of rejecting this God.

You are basically claiming that this God has failed to communicate to me clearly via the Bible. You are claiming that I have a wrong view of what this God is about.

If that's true then I'm not rejecting the God you are imagining to exist. In fact, you are confirming this very fact by claiming that what I'm actually rejecting is an incorrect view of God.

If that's the case then the "Real God" should be totally thrilled that I have rejected a false picture of him, that according to you isn't even true.

This is why the continual apologies for this religion simply don't work. All you've done here is make an argument that I'm NOT rejecting God at all, but instead I'm rejecting a totally misunderstood and wrong picture of God.

Like I say, if that's the case then the real God should be tickled pink that I have rejected an incorrect picture of him.

[Divine Insight]

I am just answering to your questions. Form my point of view it seems you are the one who needs this, not God.

Needs what? More weak apologies from Christian theists?

Your apologies don't hold water. I post on this forum to demonstrate the obvious fallacy of these ancient religious superstitions. I don't need to be convinced of anything. I know these religions are false. There can be no doubt about that.

You excuses for this religion simply don't hold water.

1. You reject what's actually written in the Bible pretending that you could interpret it to mean something opposite to what it actually says.

2. You ironically vindicate me of any charges of rejecting God by claiming that what I'm actually rejecting is a totally false and incorrect picture of God. Oddly what you are actually arguing for here is that God should be absolutely thrilled and pleased with me for having rejected a false picture of him.

Your apologies for this religion simply make no sense. They are self-contradictory or based on outright denials of what the Bible actually says.

It's like you are making endless arguments just in the hope of defending an ancient mythology that is obviously indefensible, yet you refuse to give up.