Let Us Confess!

[Divine Insight]

Let's imagine an omnipotent God with whom all things are possible.

This God can do anything, he's omnipotent, omniscient and even omnipresent. He knows every thought of every human mind. He knows the intention and the motivation behind every thought that every human ever has.

He can intervene in human lives at any moment he so desires. He can magically heal the sick. He can cast evil spirits out of people. He can appear before them at any moment as a burning bush, a talking cloud, or even as a vision in their mind of a risen Christ standing right before them in the flesh as a human form.

There is nothing he cannot do.

So why then are there any evil people at all?

If a person is evil because they are possessed by an evil spirit all this God needs to do is cast this unwanted evil spirit out of them. And then we have the question of why a human would need to be possessed by an evil spirit in the first place? Aren't humans capable of just being evil themselves?

If a person is possessed by an evil spirit, are they an "innocent person" who has been possessed by an evil spirit thus violating their free will? Of are only evil people possessed by evil spirits? And if the latter, then why would it be necessary for an evil spirit to possess a person who is already evil on their own?

Was Mary Magdalene an evil person? And if not, then why was she possessed by no less than seven evil demons? If Mary Magdalene was an innocent person, then why did this omnipotent God ever allow these evil demons to possess her in the first place?

Also, if a decent healthy person is not evil, then surely an evil person is mentally ills and sick. Why wouldn't this God just heal these mentally ill evil people.

Let Us Confess:

This entire religious paradigm makes no sense. There is no reason why a truly omnipotent God who can heal the sick and cast out evil demons would not do so for everyone from the very first moment they displayed the mental illness acting on evil thoughts, or being possessed by a demon.

The idea that an omnipotent God would just allow people to fall into the sickness of mental illness and evil and then cast those sick people into a state of eternal damnation like as if it was their fault makes no sense at all.

This religion is clearly a man-made collection of very poorly thought-out superstitions.

Any God who could not heal the mentally ill and evil people of the world cannot be said to be omnipotent. We could never say that "With this God all things are possible", because nothing could be further from the truth.

A God who can't heal the mentally ill is clearly not omnipotent and there would be at least this one thing that this God could not do. And having even one thing that he cannot do destroys the claim that he's omnipotent or that "With God all things are possible".

How is it that Jesus could case evil demons out of people, but this Almighty God cannot? In fact, if this Almighty God is omnipresent why is he allowing evil demons to possess people in the first place?

If this God can appear to people as a burning bush, a talking cloud, a talking animal, or as a vision of Jesus, then why doesn't he appear before everyone the very moment they have the motivation to act on an evil thought? Just think of the suffering and evil deeds he could prevent. He could save countless millions of people from unneeded suffering, whilst simultaneously healing the sick of their mental illness of evil motivations.

Let Us Confess:

This religion makes no sense. This religion just tries to pin the blame for mental imperfections on humans all the while proclaiming that its God is "Holier than Thou". But the God of this religion wouldn't be holy at all. He would necessarily need to be completely inept. Totally unable to even heal people of unhealthy thoughts and motivations.

We even have human psychologists who have a better track record of healing people who have had unhealthy motivations. Yet this religion demands that their God can't even do that well. It even causes us to view some people as being "evil" instead of viewing them as being in need of psychological help.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]


"If a person is possessed by an evil spirit, are they an "innocent person" who has been possessed by an evil spirit thus violating their free will? Of are only evil people possessed by evil spirits? And if the latter, then why would it be necessary for an evil spirit to possess a person who is already evil on their own? Think "

I did not think anybody today believed in evil spirit possession
and especially in western countries.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]


"If a person is possessed by an evil spirit, are they an "innocent person" who has been possessed by an evil spirit thus violating their free will? Of are only evil people possessed by evil spirits? And if the latter, then why would it be necessary for an evil spirit to possess a person who is already evil on their own? Think "

I did not think anybody today believed in evil spirit possession
and especially in western countries.

Well a large part of the western countries are Christians. You can hardly be a Christian and not believe in demon possession since Christianity is based on the Gospels that have Jesus casting evil demons out of people.

There are even accounts in Mark, Matthew, and Luke of Jesus casting the evil demons out of people and into a herd of pigs. So the claim that casting demons out of people is just a "metaphor" doesn't fly. Clearly the Gospel account states that these are actual evil demons that are being cast out of human bodies and into the bodies of pigs.

So the argument that Jesus casting demons out of people is just some sort of metaphor that means that Jesus was just changing a person's heart or mind doesn't fly.

If a person believes in Christianity they really have no choice but to also believe in demon possession. It's part and parcel of this religious paradigm.

But I will agree that many modern day Christians do indeed reject the bulk of Gospels in favor of trying to pretend that Christianity could be something other than what the Gospels actually claim. Even they realize that the religion is ridiculous as it is actually written.

So why don't they at least confess this much? The Gospels are ridiculous as they are actually written. That could be a start to opening the door to a full confession that the religion isn't supportable in any sincere rational way. We could get the Bible moved to the shelf marked "fiction" alongside Greek Mythology much quicker if the Christians would simply confess to these truths.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]


"But I will agree that many modern day Christians do indeed reject the bulk of Gospels in favor of trying to pretend that Christianity could be something other than what the Gospels actually claim. Even they realize that the religion is ridiculous as it is actually written."

**No we don't reject and we do not pretend.

'So why don't they at least confess this much? The Gospels are ridiculous as they are actually written. That could be a start to opening the door to a full confession that the religion isn't supportable in any sincere rational way. We could get the Bible moved to the shelf marked "fiction" alongside Greek Mythology much quicker if the Christians would simply confess to these truths. Very Happy"

**If you think that they are ridiculous as they are actually written, that's your truth. We the believers find profound wisdom in it.
Jesus said that his wisdom is not of this world so we are not surprised that
it 'isn't supportable in any sincere rational way'.

Of course you are speaking of the natural rational, not the spiritul rational which Jesus spoke.

[gordsd]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I think that it is very interesting that a very large portion of Christianity accepts the Bible as the infallible word of God, and, so, must accept the fantastic tales in it as real historical fact. It is ironic that neither Paul, Jesus nor any other writer in the NT demanded that the salvation they spoke of was dependent on accepting any book as the infallible word of God, neither did any demand belief in miracles or prayer or belief in fantastic tales--although they may have believed in such. They did teach however that God's love is a free gift and ours should be too.

Rather than emphasizing the meaning behind the stories they demand that the important thing is to accept the stories as historical fact. Paul never espoused the basis of faith as believing a holy book is historical fact or even a list of articles of faith. Paul simply asked people to believe in what Jesus did in offering himself up--why don't Christians stick to that?

Once one accepts the Bible as an infallible source of authority, then there is no need for that one to think for her/himself--all answers and rules for life are simply there. Righteousness becomes just doing what your told by the book. Is that any different than stumbling over the stumbling stone Paul wrote about? Establishing your own righteousness by following the law? And many times that source of authority becomes a platform to judge others by making it a barrier to love.

[Talishi]

Once one accepts the Bible as an infallible source of authority, then there is no need for that one to think for her/himself--all answers and rules for life are simply there. Righteousness becomes just doing what your told by the book. Is that any different than stumbling over the stumbling stone Paul wrote about?

This would only be a valid question if Christians actually did accept the Bible as a source of authority. But Christians say the faith-based soteriology of Paul (Romans 3) overrides the works-based soteriology of Christ (Matthew 25) pitting one part of the Bible against the other.

[gordsd]

[Replying to post 6 by Talishi]

I agree about the "faith based thing" as opposed to the works thing of chpt 25. However, if one doesn't see the contradictions in that which they worship (Bible) they will not see the contradictions in their own mind. But the question is valid. That is, if the law and all of its codes and regulations were done away with in the cross, as Paul says, why does the church institute new laws with a new canon with a new measure? the answer: they do not get it. They do not even understand what they worship! They stumble over the stumbling stone.

[Talishi]

[Replying to post 6 by Talishi]That is, if the law and all of its codes and regulations were done away with in the cross, as Paul says, why does the church institute new laws with a new canon with a new measure?

Paul does not say all the codes and regulators were done away with in the cross. In Romans 1:29-32 he affirms that homosexuality and even lesbianism (not mentioned by Moses) are worthy of the death penalty, along with committing fornication, covetousness, envy, murder, debate (!), deceit, pride, and disobedience to parents,

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Talishi]That is, if the law and all of its codes and regulations were done away with in the cross, as Paul says, why does the church institute new laws with a new canon with a new measure?

Paul does not say all the codes and regulators were done away with in the cross. In Romans 1:29-32 he affirms that homosexuality and even lesbianism (not mentioned by Moses) are worthy of the death penalty, along with committing fornication, covetousness, envy, murder, debate (!), deceit, pride, and disobedience to parents,

Not only that, but Paul also claims that those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" were given over to a reprobate mind and that the qualities and character traits that he listed are those of these people who have chosen to "not retain God in their knowledge".

But the fact of the matter is that we know this is a false accusation. Therefore we know for certain that Paul's words are untrue.

So the claims of Paul have been proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are simply too many atheists (and even religious people who do not believe in Paul's God) who do not exhibit the horrible characteristics that Paul proclaims.

Well, some could argue that Paul's accusations are true if we allow that "debate" is an immoral and horrible behavior, but that's truly absurd. In fact, Paul's addition of "debate" on his list was no doubt included just so he could accuse anyone who might argue with him of doing something "evil".

That's just an underhanded cult tactic. If you refuse to just accept everything I say without question, or if you dare to "debate" it I'll simply proclaim you to be an evil person who hates God.

That's the HALLMARK of an underhanded cult. There is no level they won't stoop to in an effort to belittle and accuse those who refuses to just shut up and do as they are told without questioning the authority of the cultist.

This is why I say that Christianity is actually an extremely underhanded and immoral cult, at least as the way Paul preaches it. He simply condemns anyone who refuses to just cower down to his preaching without questioning it. As I say, this is the HALLMARK of an underhanded cult. It's a dead give-away that the cult has no credibility. They are even afraid of debate because they know their cult cannot be defended if questioned.

That was Paul's underhanded tactic.

[gordsd]

Talishi

Paul does not say all the codes and regulators were done away with in the cross.

in Galatians this is the whole point of his disagreement with Peter—called Cephas (2:11, 21). He goes as far as to call them foolish for missing the point of the gospel (3:1-2). Paul says that we are no longer under the guardian of the law (3:24-25). This is slavery to Paul (4:3, 8-10). Ephesians: Again the law (although not considered evil by Paul) is considered a barrier to the new work of God and the goal is peace: “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near� (2:14-17).

In Romans 1:29-32 he affirms that homosexuality and even lesbianism (not mentioned by Moses) are worthy of the death penalty,

The main thrust of the passage is 2:1. The whole book of Romans must be taken as a unit. To those in Rome who have fallen into the trap of judging others according to religious rites, Paul likens stroking one's pride as one addicted to promiscuity. This is the whole theme of Romans. It's more about Christians indulging in their own righteousness than those indulging in promiscuity.