I'm very confused

[Drkshadow03]

So let's look at your logic here. You're admitting that since you were educated, our knowledge of history has changed to become more accurate. Change has improved out knowledge of history.
And then you claim that the lack of change in the bible, despite new understandings of the world around us, is somehow a good thing?
If I still believed in Santa, would that lend anything to the accuracy of the Santa myth, or just be a sign that I've had my head stuck in the ground since I was a kid?

The bible still says pi is three. We know beyond a doubt that this is false. And yet we haven't changed it. The bible is still the same because christians refuse to change it no matter what, not because it's somehow stood the test of time and is just as accurate now as it was two thousand years ago.

Eh, the Bible approximates that Pi is three. It doesn't directly say pi is three. I personally think that is reaching for rather low-hanging fruit.

[Redzeppelin]

History doesn't claim that night and day were invented before the sun, that almost every oxygen breathing creature on the planet was murdered with a flood that would have required more water than there is, or that virgins gave birth and men rose from the dead. However fallible history might be, most of it has been pieced together from evidence of some kind or another. That cannot be said for the bible.

I didn't assert that the Bible and "history" were equal in content; that would be a silly comparison because "history" and the Bible have different functions, aims,and intents; that said, what I was putting forth was more the idea of how we decide something is factual and true. Your argument suggests that since history is more "believable" then it must be true. That's a risky position, because actual history contains events and biographies full of almost unbelievable circumstances (even now there are people who deny we went to the moon, because such a thing seems unimaginable). My point (to reiterate) deals with the point you've actually made: history and the events of the Bible aren't much different in how they were recorded and passed down through time, but because what history claims seems more reasonable, we're more apt to believe it, even if what substantiates it isn't much more credible than what substantiates the Bible.

want examples of God's inconsistency? Well let's start with the example I gave, and you ignored. God repeatedly gets the ****s with the Israelites during their time in the desert and decides to kill them. Moses points out that if he does that, he'll look silly in front of the Egyptians, after all the effort he went to showing off earlier, and God changes his mind. A perfect being could never change its mind, by its very definition. I'll also point out again that in these stories, from the bible (and this happens a few times) it is Moses who knows better than God, and God admits this by listening to him.

God rescued the Israelites from 400 years of Egytian servitude; during that time they pretty much forgot who He was and what it meant to serve Him - though they were still aware of Him. When God rescued them, He commanded that they be obedient to Him - the same kind of expectation that exists for children under their parents' authority; the person in power gets to make the rules. Sin is abhorrent to God - because it destroys everything it touches (which is why leprosy is often used in the Bible as a metaphor for sin); God has good reason to hate it. Sin is rebellion against God, and the Israelites were continually being unfaithful to the God who had brought them out of slavery. Their ingratitude, their grumbling, their continued disrespect towards Him by their turning to other Gods warranted their deaths - at least in God's opinion (your disagreement with that logic doesn't make God wrong - anymore than the 3-year-old's disagreement with his parents' disciplinary measures makes them wrong). We may think their crimes insignificant, but we cannot read their hearts like God can; such behaviors, while appearing innocuous, may in reality point to a deeper, more serious attitude problem towards God.

As well, you assume that God doesn't do things for the benefit of His creations; how do you know that God's mind wasn't "changed," that He intended to keep the Israelites alive, but wanted Moses to "step up" in his role as leader? Sometimes - as a parent and teacher - I ask my children or students to convince me of something not so my mind can be changed, but because I want to hear their reasons, and I want them to explore their own logic. There are other answers than the one you have proposed.

What else? Well, God's always destroying people and civilisations, or telling his people to (Sodom, Canaan, Egypt, the entire world, etc) and then all of a sudden Jesus comes along and hey, apparently it's all about love.

The Bible is a limited document; it cannot give all details about all things, and one of the things it refuses to share in detail are the motivations and intentions of God. People are very quick to judge God for the judgments He laid upon various cultures of the OT; but - how much evidence are you in command of? How much do you know about these cultures and their attitude towards God? How much do you know about their rejection of Him, perhaps even their disrespect and mocking of Him? If you intend to condemn God using what the Bible says, then I assume you also understand that (to be consistent) you must also consider the defense the Bible offers? The Bible tells us that God is loving, merciful, all-knowing and just; it then follows that any "death sentence" God gives is based upon those qualitites. If you ignore those positive qualities and instead blast God on the "negative" episodes, then you are being selective in your choice of evidence and suppressing relevant evidence that mitigates the charge you are making.

I do not understand why God chose to condemn certain cultures, but - based on the character the Bible attributes to Him, I make the assumption (a logical one that even our courts adhere to) that there must be a good reason for His decisions based on His character.

Jesus wasn't "all about love." He made it clear that there were still consequences for sin and that judgment was still in place; he simply offered a different way of helping us connect to God. Jesus was capable of fierce behavior (check out any confrontation with the Pharisees and the "cleansing of the temple" episode).

God is supposed to be omnipotent. But before he destroys Sodom, he's talked into sending angels to make sure there aren't any nice people there. Again, a human knows better than God. Better yet, the first person the angels come across is a good person. Why didn't God know about him already?

God is omnipotent - not everything He does is about Himself; the Bible is the record of God's interactions with humanity; sometimes, I imagine that He chooses to do things a certain way for the benefit of His creatures; in this case, Abraham's nephew Lot. As well, the "bargaining" between Abraham and God may be less about convincing God and more about God exploring the heart of His servant Abraham - exploring it in a way that revealed to Abraham the nature of his own heart. Don't neglect the reality that God does things that are also for the benefit of His creatures. As a teacher, I rarely ask a question I don't know the answer to - I ask so that the student realizes what s/he does/n't know. God may be no different in that aspect.

I could go on and on, and will if you want, but not until you address every one of these examples.

Done.

Your 'logic' is about as illogical as it can get. 'Hey, all the evidence points to God either not existing or being fallible, but an old book says he's not, I guess the evidence must be wrong!' Why must you assume God knows best? The world is full of suffering, and the bible full of God's mood swings and mistakes. Isn't it possible that God isn't quite as great as he says he is?

1. I assume God knows best, because if He doesn't, then He is not worthy of being followed. You cannot (as I pointed out above) just pick out the things in the Bible that seem to "condemn" God and ignore the majority of the Bible that tells us that He is loving, just, merciful, long-suffering, patient, compassionate, all-knowing, wise, etc. It smacks of selective evidence to only pick out that which supports your case and then ignore that which weakens your case. If you're going to accept the "negatives" in the OT, you also need to accept the positives. In a court of law, "character witnesses" function to suggest that a person's character can mitigate his/her actions (to a degree); the same is true of the Bible: there is enough evidence to suggest that God's character is good - and assuming that to be true (which we can do because you seem very quick to assume it's bad based on "evidence" from the very same book), I believe that there are mitigating circumstances (that will eventually be revealed) that explain some of these troubling episodes from the OT.

2. What you see as "mood swings" may be something different. Remember, you are not in command of all the facts; only God is. To use the Bible to condemn God is to build a case on very scant evidence; I don't think a lawyer would actually take on a case against God based only on the evidence in the Bible - there is much more evidence that vindicates God than that which appears to condemn Him. (Check out investigative journalist Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ as an example of this.)

3. Perhaps God is far greater than YOU think because you don't know Him at all - you've only seen (from the outside) some of His actions/decisions; if I watched your life from the outside, without any personal knowledge of you as a person - your dreams, fears, motivations, intentions - might I not radically misjudge some of the actions you take, decisions you make?

[Pendragon]

So let's look at your logic here. You're admitting that since you were educated, our knowledge of history has changed to become more accurate. Change has improved out knowledge of history.
And then you claim that the lack of change in the bible, despite new understandings of the world around us, is somehow a good thing?
If I still believed in Santa, would that lend anything to the accuracy of the Santa myth, or just be a sign that I've had my head stuck in the ground since I was a kid?

The bible still says pi is three. We know beyond a doubt that this is false. And yet we haven't changed it. The bible is still the same because christians refuse to change it no matter what, not because it's somehow stood the test of time and is just as accurate now as it was two thousand years ago.

I don't think that history has particularly become more accurate, there is a good chance that the interpretation of history is being further obscured. And I've asked this before: Where in the Bible does it say pi is three? For some reason this doesn't come up in a careful search of the Bible via computer program.

Christians are commanded in Revelations not to change the Bible...yet, they do. In new interpretations of the Bible, there are verses that are omitted. Catholic Bibles have more books in them than Protestant Bibles. I'm told Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. He didn't believe in miracles, so he took that out. He didn't believe in the resurrection, so he took that out. He didn't believe in anything but the four gospels, so that is all he used. I'll stand with the KJV, thank you.

God Bless

Pen

[Guinivere]

I'm told Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. He didn't believe in miracles, so he took that out. He didn't believe in the resurrection, so he took that out. He didn't believe in anything but the four gospels, so that is all he used. I'll stand with the KJV, thank you.

Oh that is just brilliant. Wrote his own Bible. That man had a nerve. To some the most important book ever written and he writes his very own version. I love that.

If you take the resurrection out of christianity, what are you left with ? The Father, the who and the Holy Spirit. I guess in modern times it is hard to grasp. But the again if you are a christian you don't have to grasp it, much less prove it, if such a thing were possible which it isn't...I'm rambling. What I mean is if it is called faith, belief, etc. you don't have to change anything the Bible saiys, you only have to kepp an open mind.

[jgweed]

"People are very quick to judge God for the judgments He laid upon various cultures of the OT; but - how much evidence are you in command of? How much do you know about these cultures and their attitude towards God? How much do you know about their rejection of Him, perhaps even their disrespect and mocking of Him?"

How much does one need to know about Egyptian society and beliefs to be taken aback by God's punishing seemingly innocent farmers or gamekeepers with plagues, or his murder of first-born male infants some of whom were surely not even toddlers, and who were completely unaware and indifferent to the goings-on at the Pharoah's palace.---I suspect these children did not mock the God of the Jews, yet this God in his infinite wisdom and goodness smote them without pity or remorse.

We look at the pictures of dead children in the village streets in Darfur and shudder at the sight and condemn the government and its leader; and was not the Angel of Death the equivalent to the Jinjaweed or the SS death-camp squads?

[curlyqlink]

How much does one need to know about Egyptian society and beliefs to be taken aback by God's punishing seemingly innocent farmers or gamekeepers with plagues, or his murder of first-born male infants

It is appalling. This is collective punishment, it is genocide: things rightly condemned in the modern world. It is also of course sweet revenge; the idea of a powerful supernatural being settling the score on our behalf, loosing His righteous wrath against the enemy, has a powerful psychological appeal. Particularly to a close-knit, insular tribal mentality.

The creators of these biblical stories faced an impossible task in trying to describe a perfect God. Although He is supposed to transcend human weakness, He is of course an angry and jealous God, arbitrary and autocratic. The earth and mankind are supposed to be His crowning achievements, which leaves the tellers of the tale in the unenviable position of having to explain why this all-powerful Being made such an obvious botch of both!

I find the polytheist's pantheon much more appealing. Even, in a strange way, more believable. The Greek, Roman, and Norse gods are fallible, and they are comprehensible. They even have a sense of humor-- something the Bible is sadly lacking. If these gods seem to be looking the other way when the faithful are taking it on the chin, it is really no surprise-- the gods have their own problems, and they don't really care all that much anyway. When the sh** comes down while a supposedly loving and omniscient God is on watch... well, there's a big problem explaining it away.

[Drkshadow03]

The earth and mankind are supposed to be His crowning achievements, which leaves the tellers of the tale in the unenviable position of having to explain why this all-powerful Being made such an obvious botch of both!

Says who? While there are certainly many problems in this world, I do still think the world and people in general are mostly good. They just get confused sometimes and caught up in dogmas. Not to mention we aren't robots. People have free will, they make their own choices. If the world gets screwed up it's people's fault, not G-d's.

I find the polytheist's pantheon much more appealing. Even, in a strange way, more believable. The Greek, Roman, and Norse gods are fallible, and they are comprehensible. They even have a sense of humor-- something the Bible is sadly lacking. If these gods seem to be looking the other way when the faithful are taking it on the chin, it is really no surprise-- the gods have their own problems, and they don't really care all that much anyway. When the sh** comes down while a supposedly loving and omniscient God is on watch... well, there's a big problem explaining it away.

Don't you find it a bit ironic that this post started by talking about the misogyny of the Bible, but here you are claiming you find the Greek pantheon far more appealing, while the sexism found in the Greek myths makes the writers of the bible look like radical feminists.

[Sam?]

I didn't assert that the Bible and "history" were equal in content; that would be a silly comparison because "history" and the Bible have different functions, aims,and intents; that said, what I was putting forth was more the idea of how we decide something is factual and true. Your argument suggests that since history is more "believable" then it must be true. That's a risky position, because actual history contains events and biographies full of almost unbelievable circumstances (even now there are people who deny we went to the moon, because such a thing seems unimaginable). My point (to reiterate) deals with the point you've actually made: history and the events of the Bible aren't much different in how they were recorded and passed down through time, but because what history claims seems more reasonable, we're more apt to believe it, even if what substantiates it isn't much more credible than what substantiates the Bible.

Sorry, I missed the part where I said history must be true. As in science, the willingness to alter past assumptions leads to greater accuracy over time. That doesn't mean that what we know now is the absolute truth, but it means we're closer than we were.
You don't seem to understand history. Do you know how we know what we do about the ancient Egyptians? Because we dug up their ruins and translated their writings. It's called primary evidence. Our understanding doesn't come from vague stories passed down over time, it comes from evidence we can look at now. The bible is entirely secondary evidence, if you'd call it evidence at all, and historians always cast doubt on secondary evidence.

God rescued the Israelites from 400 years of Egytian servitude; during that time they pretty much forgot who He was and what it meant to serve Him - though they were still aware of Him. When God rescued them, He commanded that they be obedient to Him - the same kind of expectation that exists for children under their parents' authority; the person in power gets to make the rules. Sin is abhorrent to God - because it destroys everything it touches (which is why leprosy is often used in the Bible as a metaphor for sin); God has good reason to hate it. Sin is rebellion against God, and the Israelites were continually being unfaithful to the God who had brought them out of slavery. Their ingratitude, their grumbling, their continued disrespect towards Him by their turning to other Gods warranted their deaths - at least in God's opinion (your disagreement with that logic doesn't make God wrong - anymore than the 3-year-old's disagreement with his parents' disciplinary measures makes them wrong). We may think their crimes insignificant, but we cannot read their hearts like God can; such behaviors, while appearing innocuous, may in reality point to a deeper, more serious attitude problem towards God.

Note to self: It's okay to kill my kids if they disobey me.
That's where your logic fails. You judge all God's actions with the presumption that they are right. If you stood back and looked objectively you'd see an egotistical maniac. What happened to judging someone by what they do, not what they say?

As well, you assume that God doesn't do things for the benefit of His creations; how do you know that God's mind wasn't "changed," that He intended to keep the Israelites alive, but wanted Moses to "step up" in his role as leader? Sometimes - as a parent and teacher - I ask my children or students to convince me of something not so my mind can be changed, but because I want to hear their reasons, and I want them to explore their own logic. There are other answers than the one you have proposed.

Again, you're making wild unfounded excuses. If that were the case, why wouldn't the bible say so? And what about the Israelites he did kill before Moses talked him around? Is it okay to kill your kids friends to get a message through to your own kids?

The Bible is a limited document; it cannot give all details about all things, and one of the things it refuses to share in detail are the motivations and intentions of God. People are very quick to judge God for the judgments He laid upon various cultures of the OT; but - how much evidence are you in command of? How much do you know about these cultures and their attitude towards God? How much do you know about their rejection of Him, perhaps even their disrespect and mocking of Him? If you intend to condemn God using what the Bible says, then I assume you also understand that (to be consistent) you must also consider the defense the Bible offers? The Bible tells us that God is loving, merciful, all-knowing and just; it then follows that any "death sentence" God gives is based upon those qualitites. If you ignore those positive qualities and instead blast God on the "negative" episodes, then you are being selective in your choice of evidence and suppressing relevant evidence that mitigates the charge you are making.

You're right, what was I thinking? God says he's loving, merciful and all-knowing, so I should just take him on his word and ignore all the genocide he commits.
I'm not being selective with my evidence. In a court, if a murderer says he's innocent, is that even evidence? No. Is his diary, which lists all the murders he did? Yes. What God says isn't evidence at all. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth, especially when his actions contradict him so much.
I don't care how much those cultures mocked God. There is no excuse for genocide. If someone mocks you, is it okay to kill them? Of course not. Let alone their whole people. Did the babies that drowned in the great flood mock him? Did the children of Egypt who were killed by his plagues mock him?

I do not understand why God chose to condemn certain cultures, but - based on the character the Bible attributes to Him, I make the assumption (a logical one that even our courts adhere to) that there must be a good reason for His decisions based on His character.

Again, there is no logic in your assumption. Where is the evidence that he's so nice and great? Only in his words. If we assume he's capable of lying, and judge him by his actions, your assumption about his character falls to pieces. Saying you're a nice person doesn't make you one.

Jesus wasn't "all about love." He made it clear that there were still consequences for sin and that judgment was still in place; he simply offered a different way of helping us connect to God. Jesus was capable of fierce behavior (check out any confrontation with the Pharisees and the "cleansing of the temple" episode).

God is omnipotent - not everything He does is about Himself; the Bible is the record of God's interactions with humanity; sometimes, I imagine that He chooses to do things a certain way for the benefit of His creatures; in this case, Abraham's nephew Lot. As well, the "bargaining" between Abraham and God may be less about convincing God and more about God exploring the heart of His servant Abraham - exploring it in a way that revealed to Abraham the nature of his own heart. Don't neglect the reality that God does things that are also for the benefit of His creatures. As a teacher, I rarely ask a question I don't know the answer to - I ask so that the student realizes what s/he does/n't know. God may be no different in that aspect.

You've left unadressed the fact that he didn't know there were nice people in Sodom.

Done.



1. I assume God knows best, because if He doesn't, then He is not worthy of being followed. You cannot (as I pointed out above) just pick out the things in the Bible that seem to "condemn" God and ignore the majority of the Bible that tells us that He is loving, just, merciful, long-suffering, patient, compassionate, all-knowing, wise, etc. It smacks of selective evidence to only pick out that which supports your case and then ignore that which weakens your case. If you're going to accept the "negatives" in the OT, you also need to accept the positives. In a court of law, "character witnesses" function to suggest that a person's character can mitigate his/her actions (to a degree); the same is true of the Bible: there is enough evidence to suggest that God's character is good - and assuming that to be true (which we can do because you seem very quick to assume it's bad based on "evidence" from the very same book), I believe that there are mitigating circumstances (that will eventually be revealed) that explain some of these troubling episodes from the OT.

I've covered most of this before, but I'll ask specifically: what is the evidence that God is nice? And I want examples of his actions, the things he and others say don't count.

2. What you see as "mood swings" may be something different. Remember, you are not in command of all the facts; only God is. To use the Bible to condemn God is to build a case on very scant evidence; I don't think a lawyer would actually take on a case against God based only on the evidence in the Bible - there is much more evidence that vindicates God than that which appears to condemn Him. (Check out investigative journalist Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ as an example of this.)

This argument works both ways. A

3. Perhaps God is far greater than YOU think because you don't know Him at all - you've only seen (from the outside) some of His actions/decisions; if I watched your life from the outside, without any personal knowledge of you as a person - your dreams, fears, motivations, intentions - might I not radically misjudge some of the actions you take, decisions you make?

The bible is a book specifically written to convince me he's great and I should worship him. If even his own book presents him as a murderous, egotistical maniac, what does that say about him?

You rather wasted your time writing all this, you could have just said 'God must be great, he says so himself, so just ignore or excuse all the atrocities he commits.'
I suggest you drop your assumptions and judge God by what he does, not what he says. Even when he's 'saving us' it requires the torture and murder of his own son.

[Redzeppelin]

You don't seem to understand history. Do you know how we know what we do about the ancient Egyptians? Because we dug up their ruins and translated their writings. It's called primary evidence. Our understanding doesn't come from vague stories passed down over time, it comes from evidence we can look at now. The bible is entirely secondary evidence, if you'd call it evidence at all, and historians always cast doubt on secondary evidence.

I understand it quite well, thank you. There is also evidence of the same sort that corroborates people and places in the Bible. What I am speaking of is the fact that we rely upon the testimony of others as to what happened in the distant (and even not-so-distant) past; we even rely upon others to interpret these ruins and writings - and we assume we're being told the truth -why?

I do not call the Bible "evidence" of anything; it is a narrative that claims to reveal the character of God; as a bonus, outside historical sources and archeological finds confirm much of what it says.

Note to self: It's okay to kill my kids if they disobey me.
That's where your logic fails. You judge all God's actions with the presumption that they are right. If you stood back and looked objectively you'd see an egotistical maniac. What happened to judging someone by what they do, not what they say?

Your sarcasm does little by way of keeping this an intelligent discussion - why is it that I find so many agnostics/atheists/doubters/whatever are so prone to nasty tones towards Christians in these discussions?

There is no such thing as "objectivity" when it comes to God, sorry. CS Lewis once pointed out that there were generally three responses to Christ while he was here on earth: people either a) adored him, b) hated him, or c) were terrified of him; whatever he inspired, it was never apathy. I think God is the same way.

Either way, I assume that God has right and just reasons for what He does based upon my relationship with Him and the things the Bible reveals about His character; that does not mean that I'm OK with everything the Bible contains; it means I have chosen to suspend judgment for the time being because I do not have command of all the facts - there is no way for any human being to know the level of information about people and their hearts that God knows. I do not justify His actions - He needs not my defense; but I do assume that a being I believe to be perfectly just and loving acts accordingly to those principles that the Bible claims Him to have. The Bible is the only authority we have when it comes to understanding God. As well, why would God include the "atrocities" in the Bible if they simply served to incriminate Him and turn people away? His willingness to share even such unattractive moments seems to speak to His honesty and openness - and perhaps suggests that He has nothing to hide nor fear about our observing of such terrible events.

We do judge people by what they do, you're right; but all courts of law seek to know motivation - and sometimes the motivation and intention mitigate the crime. The man who stole bread to save his child's life or the man who lies to the Nazi's at the door about the Jews in his cellar have both violated commandments - yet their motivation and intention makes clear that they have acted rightly. Actions only tell part of the story - and, unfortunately, the Bible often only gives us the action. If God chose not to share it, I will assume He has good reason not to.

Again, you're making wild unfounded excuses. If that were the case, why wouldn't the bible say so? And what about the Israelites he did kill before Moses talked him around? Is it okay to kill your kids friends to get a message through to your own kids?

No excuses being offered; I'm pointing out that your conclusions are simply one possibility; there are other possibilities that are equally as reasonable as you believe yours to be.

First, you seem to think that death is the greatest evil; for us, perhaps; for God, maybe not. Compared to the horror of separation from God, death could be seen as a mercy. Don't assume that those whom God allowed to be killed were innocent - you have no way of knowing such information; more than likely, you simply assume the worst because you don't like God and are seeking any "evidence" to hold against Him because He doesn't confrom to your idea of who He sould be.

You're right, what was I thinking? God says he's loving, merciful and all-knowing, so I should just take him on his word and ignore all the genocide he commits.

More sarcasm. In the kind of scholarly debates I'm used to, this stuff is totally worthless.

You don't need to take God at His word - I do. You are free to ignore what He claims and place yourself in the judgment seat. But doing so (as you have done) simply reveals that you don't really even believe in God (at least how the Bible describes Him). Seriously; who would place themselves in judgment over a being who creates universes for fun? Who would mock an entity who can assemble the human body out of clay, breathe in it and bring it to life?

The Bible was not written to answer all our questions or correct all social ills; its job is to reveal God to believers - period. Everything else is secondary to that - including providing sufficient evidence so that doubters would be satisfied (but doubters don't really want to be satisfied - so no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient anyway).

And - it is not only God who tells us He's merciful, loving, etc - it is the people who wrote the Bible, testifying of their knowledge of God through His presence in their lives.

I'm not being selective with my evidence. In a court, if a murderer says he's innocent, is that even evidence? No. Is his diary, which lists all the murders he did? Yes. What God says isn't evidence at all. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth, especially when his actions contradict him so much.

Clever, but not convincing. Not only does God claim He's good - He proves it numerous times throughout the Bible - but most clearly, in the example that all disbelievers ignore, God sent Jesus Christ to redeem all of humanity and extend the gift of salvation and eternal life to ALL. Jesus Christ was a sinless, perfect man (who was also at the same time God); He was completely innocent but sacrificed his life to pay the debt of death that all of us owe by nature of sin. All of us (yep, even you, my friend) are free of the death sentence laid upon us by sin because of Christ's sacrifice - and that is the ultimate proof that God is good; yes there are terrible things in the OT, but Christ's sacrifce balances out the scales for all who have ever lived and sinned in this world.

And again, as I pointed out above, actions do not always speak for themselves.

And, I made it clear that in a court of law, it is common to call forward "character witnesses" to testify to the defendant's character - so that the judge may see that the individual may warrant consideration in how the jury decides. The Bible contains enough evidence about the goodness of God's character that He is far from condemned by the OT episodes you choose to focus on.

I don't care how much those cultures mocked God. There is no excuse for genocide. If someone mocks you, is it okay to kill them? Of course not. Let alone their whole people. Did the babies that drowned in the great flood mock him? Did the children of Egypt who were killed by his plagues mock him?

You're pretty big on the genocide term, eh? What I can't take the time to go deeply into is the nature of sin; we only think about this life, but God thinks about eternity; for Him, there is nothing more important than the state of your soul - not even your life is as important to God as your future fate; that said, God sometimes takes extreme action. Again: you are not in command of all the facts; you do not understand sin as God does, and you assume that the death of these people was the worst thing that could happen to them; perhaps in God's mind, there are worse things; perhaps - perhaps His action stopped them from going into someplace even worse. How are we to know?

The plagues were Pharoh's choice. God never sent one against Pharoh's will. How about some blame for the head guy who kept challenging God even after 2-3 pretty impressive demonstrations of power? Why isn't HE held responsible for what his decisions brought upon his people?

Again, there is no logic in your assumption. Where is the evidence that he's so nice and great? Only in his words. If we assume he's capable of lying, and judge him by his actions, your assumption about his character falls to pieces. Saying you're a nice person doesn't make you one.

Here's what I find really illogical: people claim that God is a liar, a tyrant, a murderer, etc - and yet such a God would have no logical reason to allow those who challenge, attack, and mock Him to live. Earthly tyrants do not suffer such behaviors, why should God? The fact that you and others are free to continue to speak as you do is evidence of God's love - because only a fair and just God would allow His creatures to mock, disrespect, and reject Him and continue to sustain their lives. How is it logical to paint God a tyrant and then continue to exist? Why should a lying dictator allow you to continue to challenge Him? The Bible's claims of God's goodness explain why those who sin are still here on earth and blessed just as are the believers.

You've left unadressed the fact that he didn't know there were nice people in Sodom.

I addressed that. Re-read my post.

I've covered most of this before, but I'll ask specifically: what is the evidence that God is nice? And I want examples of his actions, the things he and others say don't count.

"Nice" isn't a word I would choose to describe God; "nice" is bland and an overrated quality in this world. You can be "nice" and still be a terrible person. I've heard Ted Bundy was quite charming in conversation before he raped and killed.

The primary example of God's goodness is again Christ's sacrifice; as part of the Holy Trinity, Christ was God; as such, God sacrifices himself to redeem fallen humanity. He did not have to do that - because of His great love for the people He created, He sacrifced himself to offer eternal life to us all. There is no greater example.

There are countless examples of God rescuing those who followed Him, forgiving those who sinned against Him, bringing justice to the oppressed. He rescued His people from persecution; through Christ's ministry on earth, countless people were healed, forgiven, given a second chance and offered changed lives for the better. He fed those who were hungry, avenged those who were wrong, cared for those in need. The Bible is full of this stuff - but even if I quoted text after text, I'm well aware it wouldn't do any good. Like myself, you have begun from a certain philosophical position and built your case upon it. My fundamental position is that God is good; yours is that He is not. Neither of us will convince the other of his/her rightness. You fancy yourself "open-minded," but in reality, you are as embedded in your position as I am in mine. There is no amount of "evidence" that could change your mind. You are as determined to see God as a bad guy as I am to see Him as good. Don't flatter yourself that you're more "objective" than I am - an objective reading of the Bible would consider the good and the bad; you're only considering the bad.

The bible is a book specifically written to convince me he's great and I should worship him. If even his own book presents him as a murderous, egotistical maniac, what does that say about him?

The Bible was not written to convince you of anything; it exists to reveal God to those who wish to know Him; for those who don't wish to know Him, reading it will offer them little of value. You have chosen your interpretation; fair enough - but don't kid yourself that your interpretation is authoritative, or even fair - and it certainly isn't unbiased and objective. Nobody approaches the Bible with such a position except perhaps a child. You are not in command of all the facts, yet you have decided to render judgment. OK - but you have sentenced God on things that you only partially understand, and only partially see.

You rather wasted your time writing all this, you could have just said 'God must be great, he says so himself, so just ignore or excuse all the atrocities he commits.'
I suggest you drop your assumptions and judge God by what he does, not what he says. Even when he's 'saving us' it requires the torture and murder of his own son.

Your absurd simplification of my posting says much about your attitude and your willingess to listen to opposing viewpoints. I took my time in responding to show respect to your objections. Nothing I have said even remotely resembles the ridiculous dogmatism you have accused me of spouting.

You may suggest all you like - what on earth gives your suggestions any power or authority that I should take them seriously?

God has rescued us from sin - sin leads to death. That is not God's decision - that is a reality of existence. All that is not God is death. To sin is to choose death. Because we inherited sin from the fall of Adam and Eve, we all were basically born with a death sentence from which there was no escape. God offered that escape through Jesus. Reading the Bible more carefully and with a more open mind might have made that clearer to you. Trust me: it is not a book you can lightly read and fully understand; as well, if you try to read it with mind to tear it apart, it will only frustrate you and reveal nothing of value.

[Sam?]

I understand it quite well, thank you. There is also evidence of the same sort that corroborates people and places in the Bible. What I am speaking of is the fact that we rely upon the testimony of others as to what happened in the distant (and even not-so-distant) past; we even rely upon others to interpret these ruins and writings - and we assume we're being told the truth -why?

I do not call the Bible "evidence" of anything; it is a narrative that claims to reveal the character of God; as a bonus, outside historical sources and archeological finds confirm much of what it says.

Your sarcasm does little by way of keeping this an intelligent discussion - why is it that I find so many agnostics/atheists/doubters/whatever are so prone to nasty tones towards Christians in these discussions?

There is no such thing as "objectivity" when it comes to God, sorry. CS Lewis once pointed out that there were generally three responses to Christ while he was here on earth: people either a) adored him, b) hated him, or c) were terrified of him; whatever he inspired, it was never apathy. I think God is the same way.

Either way, I assume that God has right and just reasons for what He does based upon my relationship with Him and the things the Bible reveals about His character; that does not mean that I'm OK with everything the Bible contains; it means I have chosen to suspend judgment for the time being because I do not have command of all the facts - there is no way for any human being to know the level of information about people and their hearts that God knows. I do not justify His actions - He needs not my defense; but I do assume that a being I believe to be perfectly just and loving acts accordingly to those principles that the Bible claims Him to have. The Bible is the only authority we have when it comes to understanding God. As well, why would God include the "atrocities" in the Bible if they simply served to incriminate Him and turn people away? His willingness to share even such unattractive moments seems to speak to His honesty and openness - and perhaps suggests that He has nothing to hide nor fear about our observing of such terrible events.

We do judge people by what they do, you're right; but all courts of law seek to know motivation - and sometimes the motivation and intention mitigate the crime. The man who stole bread to save his child's life or the man who lies to the Nazi's at the door about the Jews in his cellar have both violated commandments - yet their motivation and intention makes clear that they have acted rightly. Actions only tell part of the story - and, unfortunately, the Bible often only gives us the action. If God chose not to share it, I will assume He has good reason not to.

No excuses being offered; I'm pointing out that your conclusions are simply one possibility; there are other possibilities that are equally as reasonable as you believe yours to be.

Again, you're just refusing to question your beliefs. You have your assumptions, and you ignore anything that contradicts them, assuming without basis that God must have had a great reason for every horrible act he commited. There's no point me trying to argue this.

First, you seem to think that death is the greatest evil; for us, perhaps; for God, maybe not. Compared to the horror of separation from God, death could be seen as a mercy. Don't assume that those whom God allowed to be killed were innocent - you have no way of knowing such information; more than likely, you simply assume the worst because you don't like God and are seeking any "evidence" to hold against Him because He doesn't confrom to your idea of who He sould be.

Likewise, don't assume God was in the right, don't assume etc. And are you suggesting all the babies and children killed by the flood deserved to die? The babies of Sodom? The babies of Egypt? I'm sure there were bad people, but I'm sure there were good and innocent people too.
Plus, how could it have been a mercy for all of those people to go to Hell? Are you suggesting he let the rules slide for them and let them into heaven? Either he killed sinners, who went to Hell, or he killed innocents.

More sarcasm. In the kind of scholarly debates I'm used to, this stuff is totally worthless.

You don't need to take God at His word - I do. You are free to ignore what He claims and place yourself in the judgment seat. But doing so (as you have done) simply reveals that you don't really even believe in God (at least how the Bible describes Him). Seriously; who would place themselves in judgment over a being who creates universes for fun? Who would mock an entity who can assemble the human body out of clay, breathe in it and bring it to life?

No, I indeed don't believe in God. But even if there were, I don't see how he must be infallible. Why is it so hard to concieve of a God capable of making mistakes. The ability to create doesn't make one perfect.

The Bible was not written to answer all our questions or correct all social ills; its job is to reveal God to believers - period. Everything else is secondary to that - including providing sufficient evidence so that doubters would be satisfied (but doubters don't really want to be satisfied - so no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient anyway).

And - it is not only God who tells us He's merciful, loving, etc - it is the people who wrote the Bible, testifying of their knowledge of God through His presence in their lives.

No testemonial could absolve Hitler of his guilt, and the atrocities God commits in the bible are a thousand times worse than anything Hitler ever did.
If the bible's job is to reveal God, then by not providing evidence, it fails, because there are millions of people like me unwilling to take its claims at face value, and by withholding evidence, it's condeming us to Hell.

Clever, but not convincing. Not only does God claim He's good - He proves it numerous times throughout the Bible - but most clearly, in the example that all disbelievers ignore, God sent Jesus Christ to redeem all of humanity and extend the gift of salvation and eternal life to ALL. Jesus Christ was a sinless, perfect man (who was also at the same time God); He was completely innocent but sacrificed his life to pay the debt of death that all of us owe by nature of sin. All of us (yep, even you, my friend) are free of the death sentence laid upon us by sin because of Christ's sacrifice - and that is the ultimate proof that God is good; yes there are terrible things in the OT, but Christ's sacrifce balances out the scales for all who have ever lived and sinned in this world.

He's God, he could have just forgiven us (unless he's not as omnipotent as he says), instead he decides someone, be it him or his son, has to be tortured to death. Very loving. And he only had to do that because he decided we are responsible for the sins of two people we've never met in the first place. Locking someone innocent up and then breaking them out by torturing your son to death isn't a great heroic act, it's cleaning up your own mess.

And again, as I pointed out above, actions do not always speak for themselves.

And, I made it clear that in a court of law, it is common to call forward "character witnesses" to testify to the defendant's character - so that the judge may see that the individual may warrant consideration in how the jury decides. The Bible contains enough evidence about the goodness of God's character that He is far from condemned by the OT episodes you choose to focus on.

So list it. Besides Jesus, what has he done to even cancel out murdering everyone in the world with a flood?

You're pretty big on the genocide term, eh? What I can't take the time to go deeply into is the nature of sin; we only think about this life, but God thinks about eternity; for Him, there is nothing more important than the state of your soul - not even your life is as important to God as your future fate; that said, God sometimes takes extreme action. Again: you are not in command of all the facts; you do not understand sin as God does, and you assume that the death of these people was the worst thing that could happen to them; perhaps in God's mind, there are worse things; perhaps - perhaps His action stopped them from going into someplace even worse. How are we to know?

I've already covered this. If he murdered everyone in the world/sodom etc because they were sinners, then they went to Hell. I think I'd rather live in a world full of sinners than in Hell, how about you?

The plagues were Pharoh's choice. God never sent one against Pharoh's will. How about some blame for the head guy who kept challenging God even after 2-3 pretty impressive demonstrations of power? Why isn't HE held responsible for what his decisions brought upon his people?

The bible specifically says God made the pharoah keep challenging him (harden his heart). The pharoah didn't have a choice. In any case, I see no reason why God had to punish all the Egyptian people. I don't blame the average American for the actions of George Bush, and if I could convict him of war crimes, I wouldn't lock them up as well.

Here's what I find really illogical: people claim that God is a liar, a tyrant, a murderer, etc - and yet such a God would have no logical reason to allow those who challenge, attack, and mock Him to live. Earthly tyrants do not suffer such behaviors, why should God? The fact that you and others are free to continue to speak as you do is evidence of God's love - because only a fair and just God would allow His creatures to mock, disrespect, and reject Him and continue to sustain their lives. How is it logical to paint God a tyrant and then continue to exist? Why should a lying dictator allow you to continue to challenge Him? The Bible's claims of God's goodness explain why those who sin are still here on earth and blessed just as are the believers.

Here's a logical explanation: God doesn't exist. He is an imaginary construct that changed with time to fit the expectations of his believers. Once people wanted a tough, all powerful God who murdered and punished their enemies, now people want an all loving God who cares about them.

I addressed that. Re-read my post.

"Nice" isn't a word I would choose to describe God; "nice" is bland and an overrated quality in this world. You can be "nice" and still be a terrible person. I've heard Ted Bundy was quite charming in conversation before he raped and killed.

The primary example of God's goodness is again Christ's sacrifice; as part of the Holy Trinity, Christ was God; as such, God sacrifices himself to redeem fallen humanity. He did not have to do that - because of His great love for the people He created, He sacrifced himself to offer eternal life to us all. There is no greater example.

Again, there was no need for anyone to be sacrificed. He could have just forgiven us, or not blamed us for something we didn't do in the first place.

There are countless examples of God rescuing those who followed Him, forgiving those who sinned against Him, bringing justice to the oppressed. He rescued His people from persecution; through Christ's ministry on earth, countless people were healed, forgiven, given a second chance and offered changed lives for the better. He fed those who were hungry, avenged those who were wrong, cared for those in need. The Bible is full of this stuff - but even if I quoted text after text, I'm well aware it wouldn't do any good. Like myself, you have begun from a certain philosophical position and built your case upon it. My fundamental position is that God is good; yours is that He is not. Neither of us will convince the other of his/her rightness. You fancy yourself "open-minded," but in reality, you are as embedded in your position as I am in mine. There is no amount of "evidence" that could change your mind. You are as determined to see God as a bad guy as I am to see Him as good. Don't flatter yourself that you're more "objective" than I am - an objective reading of the Bible would consider the good and the bad; you're only considering the bad.

Healing a leper doesn't really compare with murdering all life on earth.
And actually, despite yet another of your assumptions, I began reading the bible only with the belief that God doesn't exist. I had no idea he'd be the bloodthirsty megalomaniac that he turned out to be. I really didn't. Given everything I'd always heard, I thought he'd be the loving benevolent creator you see him as. Non existent, yes, but caring and compassionate. My present view was formed through reading the bible, nothing else.

The Bible was not written to convince you of anything; it exists to reveal God to those who wish to know Him; for those who don't wish to know Him, reading it will offer them little of value. You have chosen your interpretation; fair enough - but don't kid yourself that your interpretation is authoritative, or even fair - and it certainly isn't unbiased and objective. Nobody approaches the Bible with such a position except perhaps a child. You are not in command of all the facts, yet you have decided to render judgment. OK - but you have sentenced God on things that you only partially understand, and only partially see.

He chose the evidence to present to me. If there was more, I'd look at it as well. If the evidence available paints him in a bad light, that is hardly my fault, is it? What can I do but base my opinion on what he supposedly provided? What reason do I have to assume there are lots of nice explanations?

Your absurd simplification of my posting says much about your attitude and your willingess to listen to opposing viewpoints. I took my time in responding to show respect to your objections. Nothing I have said even remotely resembles the ridiculous dogmatism you have accused me of spouting.

You may suggest all you like - what on earth gives your suggestions any power or authority that I should take them seriously?

Right back at you chief.

God has rescued us from sin - sin leads to death. That is not God's decision - that is a reality of existence. All that is not God is death. To sin is to choose death. Because we inherited sin from the fall of Adam and Eve, we all were basically born with a death sentence from which there was no escape. God offered that escape through Jesus. Reading the Bible more carefully and with a more open mind might have made that clearer to you. Trust me: it is not a book you can lightly read and fully understand; as well, if you try to read it with mind to tear it apart, it will only frustrate you and reveal nothing of value.

If God is omnipotent and created reality and existence, how can that not be God's decision? If we inherit the original sin, that is because God decided we would. He could just as easily have decided we inherit the good deeds of our ancestors.

[Drkshadow03]

No, I indeed don't believe in God . . .No testemonial could absolve Hitler of his guilt, and the atrocities God commits in the bible are a thousand times worse than anything Hitler ever did.

So you just compared an actual atrocity in human history that I assume you actually believed happened to atrocities in a book you believe to be made up. Gee, that's not at all offensive. Then you have the gall to whine about the horrible immoral unethical religious people.

Also, you keep claiming the Bible doesn't show enough evidence for G-d. I'm wondering what sort of evidence are you looking for exactly ?

[Jozanny]

Also, you keep claiming the Bible doesn't show enough evidence for G-d. I'm wondering what sort of evidence are you looking for exactly ?

The stories in Genesis and Exodus describe a character, whom I was taught was named Yahweh--in characterization, Yahweh comes off as insecure and in need of attention. He wants sacrifices in his name. Cattle cannot be deified. Why? How is a golden Baal a threat to this omnipotent being who has a covenant with one group of people?

It's just a material representation of an animal which was then and is now important to human survival.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say it here: Yahweh is much closer in portrayal to a comic book superhero than he is to any linguistic concept of a one god which simply is what it is for all eternity, and because Yahweh is a character portrayed by human authors who were limited to reaching for grandiose comparisons, this is not evidence of his unnamable divinity.

Now, if I said, Yo, big daddy, I have suffered with my disease enough for 46 years, let me get up and walk tomorrow totally cured, and he did it, and my body was perfect, then okay Drk, maybe I am wrong and your big daddy deserves my slavering abasement.

Until then, I think quarks are more interesting.

[Redzeppelin]

Again, you're just refusing to question your beliefs. You have your assumptions, and you ignore anything that contradicts them, assuming without basis that God must have had a great reason for every horrible act he commited. There's no point me trying to argue this.

You know nothing about me. You have no idea the road I've traveled to arrive at my current position. I know what it means to question God, to wonder if He's real, and to live as if He's not. You ignore the possiblity that I have questioned my beliefs and they proved to be more solid than I thought. C.S. Lewis, Christianity's foremost apologist, was a hardcore atheist before he realized he was wrong. Some Christians find their beliefs the hard way.

Likewise, don't assume God was in the right, don't assume etc. And are you suggesting all the babies and children killed by the flood deserved to die? The babies of Sodom? The babies of Egypt? I'm sure there were bad people, but I'm sure there were good and innocent people too.

It is perfectly logical to make assumptions based on reasonable evidence. From the Bible, from the lives of those close to me, and from my own life, I know God is good. I also know He has done things that trouble me deeply - and as I said before, I suspend judgment because I am aware that God knows things I do not. When all is said and done, God will make clear to all - believer and nonbelievers alike - His reasons for what He did and all will agree He was just.

Let me give you a silly example that you may more than likely scoff at. Today I was out back spraying my stucco fence and a baby lizard ran up the wall and into the path of my sprayer. The thing got covered in paint. I don't know if latex paint is bad for lizards, but I felt bad for the little guy. So, I caught him and took him over to a dish of water, submerged him in it to get him wet, and rubbed the paint off of him. I'm pretty sure the lizard did not enjoy any of the experience, and - if it was capable of thought, most assuredly would have thought his life was over. He had no way of knowing that I was trying to help him.
In a very small and incomplete way, I sometimes think that that is how things are between us and God. Like a lizard, we have such a limited view of reality that we sometimes cannot comprehend what is happening to us - and there are often things that we think terrible that - if we had God's larger perspective - we might understand better. I know that that analogy doesn't compare to "genocide," but it does provide and example of why I think your conclusions are premature - our perspectives are too narrow to take on God. We simply don't know enough.

Back to your questions: I didn't say babies and innocent people deserved to die; that is you making a straw man argument; I said I believe that God has a good reason to act as He does, and this belief is based on what the Bible tells me about His character. Your arguments are consistently based on the idea that God is an unfair judge - but what proof do you have that He is, beyond the fact that He did some things that you believe (with your limited knowledge) to be unjust? What exactly do you know about the people God condemned? What do you know of their hearts, the role of sin in their lives, and the level to which they may have turned from God? You challenge God's prerogative to judge, yet have no problem putting yourself on the bench - but what qualifies you to judge God?

Exactly what makes you "sure" there were innocent people amongst the dead? Do you have a source for this belief - or do you just "feel" like it? Serious charges demand compelling evidence.

Plus, how could it have been a mercy for all of those people to go to Hell? Are you suggesting he let the rules slide for them and let them into heaven? Either he killed sinners, who went to Hell, or he killed innocents.

I prefer to believe God allowed sinners to die. Letting innocents die, however, may be a blessing in that they are spared something worse to come. We just don't know enough to assume otherwise. Would you say a Jewish man who got his by a car the day before the Nazi roundup was a lucky guy? Many of those who went to the camps might say "yes."

No, I indeed don't believe in God. But even if there were, I don't see how he must be infallible. Why is it so hard to concieve of a God capable of making mistakes. The ability to create doesn't make one perfect.

You know what I find fascinating? That people will go to great lengths to argue about something that doesn't exist only when that something is God. Nobody gets bent out of shape about unicorns, vampires, etc and couldn't be bothered to argue with those who believe in them - but God is special, isn't He?

You've verified the point I made: those who don't believe in God will obviously take issue with His actions because they are already predisposed to be looking for objectionable things. Like I said (and you've just proven): nobody is really objective about God. The choice to not believe is a conscious rejection of God. You're free to do so, but don't kid yourself that that choice makes you any more objective or clear-minded than I. You've chosen your world view, I've chosen mine.

No testemonial could absolve Hitler of his guilt, and the atrocities God commits in the bible are a thousand times worse than anything Hitler ever did.
If the bible's job is to reveal God, then by not providing evidence, it fails, because there are millions of people like me unwilling to take its claims at face value, and by withholding evidence, it's condeming us to Hell.

You cannot compare Hitler to God; Hitler was an imbalanced and mentally ill man, a fallen sinner with evil intent; God is the perfect judge and loving redeemer of mankind. There is no comparison you can make - and again: you assume that the peoples that God put under judgment were innocent people - you have no proof of that beyond assumption.

He's God, he could have just forgiven us (unless he's not as omnipotent as he says), instead he decides someone, be it him or his son, has to be tortured to death. Very loving. And he only had to do that because he decided we are responsible for the sins of two people we've never met in the first place. Locking someone innocent up and then breaking them out by torturing your son to death isn't a great heroic act, it's cleaning up your own mess.

Nope; because "just forgiving" everybody creates the kind of God you accuse God of being: unfair. Do you think Hitler (since you brought him up) out to be "just forgiven" for his crimes? Should a serial rapist just "be forgiven" for his crimes? A just God must hold people accountable - sin has a price - a price that God did not make. You assume that sin is something God created - so therefore, any "rules" about it can be bent; wrong: sin is that which is contrary to God - all that is not God is sin and death. If you choose (using your freewill) to turn from God, you will die - not because God will kill you, but because you have rejected the source of all Life in the universe - just as you would die if you didn't eat or drink. Granted, that death doesn't happen immediately, because God extends His grace to those who reject Him; but, at some point, time will run out and God will allow you to make the final choice to reject Him once and for all - and at that point, you will face whatever lies at the opposite end of the heavenly afterlife. A loving God must be a just God - sin can't just be swept away. Christ took the penalty which allows all of us to be forgiven.

So list it. Besides Jesus, what has he done to even cancel out murdering everyone in the world with a flood?

I'll pass on the list; I've done so for nonbelievers in the past and realized that they're by-and-large just looking for a fight; I'm not interested in putting that much effort into something so you can simply dismiss it; sorry.

I've already covered this. If he murdered everyone in the world/sodom etc because they were sinners, then they went to Hell. I think I'd rather live in a world full of sinners than in Hell, how about you?

Does the Bible say that those in Sodom went to Hell? I don't know what God intends to do about such cases - but again, you assume there were good people there - and you do so without any proof beyond your feelings.

The bible specifically says God made the pharoah keep challenging him (harden his heart). The pharoah didn't have a choice. In any case, I see no reason why God had to punish all the Egyptian people. I don't blame the average American for the actions of George Bush, and if I could convict him of war crimes, I wouldn't lock them up as well.

Many scholars suggest that verb "hardened" in the phrase "God hardened Pharoah's heart" is not God actively "hardening" Pharoah's heart, but more that God's conviction hardened Pharoah's heart. Here's a similar sentence: The sun hardened the clay. In this sentence, the sun didn't actively so anything but shine; but, its heat combined with the elemental/chemical makeup of clay, resulted in it hardening, just as other materials placed in the sun will have a different reaction and soften (like ice cream). Pharoah's heart, being what it was, naturally hardened when convicted by God. Pharoah had his choice. God may have known the effect of His conviction on Pharoah's heart, but He did not make Pharoah do anything against His will; that's not God's style.

Of course YOU don't see any reason to punish all the Egyptian people - you weren't there and you know the tiniest degree of the spiritual aspedt of the culture during this time period (the aspect that God cares most about), the condition of the peoples' hearts, the level of sin in their society, etc, etc, etc. You're basing your objections on a) your dislike of God, b) your assumption of innocence in ancient peoples that God laid judgment on, and c) your belief that God is as self-serving and unjust as a human.

Here's a logical explanation: God doesn't exist. He is an imaginary construct that changed with time to fit the expectations of his believers. Once people wanted a tough, all powerful God who murdered and punished their enemies, now people want an all loving God who cares about them.

Nah. God is the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe, the moral code hardwired into humans, and the solution for human suffering; God is the answer for the human longing that nothing on this earth ever quite satisfies.

Again, there was no need for anyone to be sacrificed. He could have just forgiven us, or not blamed us for something we didn't do in the first place.

Already covered. You desire God to be fair in dealing with sinful, heathen peoples, but you then turn around and then ask Him to be unfair in terms of justice. Huh?

Healing a leper doesn't really compare with murdering all life on earth.
And actually, despite yet another of your assumptions, I began reading the bible only with the belief that God doesn't exist. I had no idea he'd be the bloodthirsty megalomaniac that he turned out to be. I really didn't. Given everything I'd always heard, I thought he'd be the loving benevolent creator you see him as. Non existent, yes, but caring and compassionate. My present view was formed through reading the bible, nothing else.

Reading the Bible with zero belief in God is the equivalent of deciding that Shakespeare is gay and then reading his plays/sonnets: you will find what you're looking for.

He chose the evidence to present to me. If there was more, I'd look at it as well. If the evidence available paints him in a bad light, that is hardly my fault, is it? What can I do but base my opinion on what he supposedly provided? What reason do I have to assume there are lots of nice explanations?

The evidence "paints" God according to your relationship to Him; for those of us who love Him and have a relationship with Him, we read the Bible differently than those who hate Him and desire to attack/judge Him. God is not in the least worried that you're bothered by His actions any more than a parent is bothered that his 3-year-old thinks he's mean because he couldn't have candy for dinner. The kid doesn't understand the larger picture, and nonbelievers only "see" God through a very narrow crack.

Right back at you chief.

Except that I don't recall every suggesting what you should do. Care to show me where I did so?

If God is omnipotent and created reality and existence, how can that not be God's decision? If we inherit the original sin, that is because God decided we would. He could just as easily have decided we inherit the good deeds of our ancestors.

As I said: God did not choose to bring sin into this world. For freewill to exist, the choice to reject God must be an option; but, since God is the source of Life, choosing otherwise means choosing death. I'd go on, but your admission of nonbelief in God makes what I've already written probably way more than necessary, because we're not really having a discussion - you're just arguing against God and I'm explaining that your view is only one possibility; there are others - whether you wish to conceed so or not.

[Jozanny]

Many scholars suggest that verb "hardened" in the phrase "God hardened Pharoah's heart" is not God actively "hardening" Pharoah's heart, but more that God's conviction hardened Pharoah's heart. Here's a similar sentence: The sun hardened the clay. In this sentence, the sun didn't actively so anything but shine; but, its heat combined with the elemental/chemical makeup of clay, resulted in it hardening, just as other materials placed in the sun will have a different reaction and soften (like ice cream). Pharoah's heart, being what it was, naturally hardened when convicted by God. Pharoah had his choice. God may have known the effect of His conviction on Pharoah's heart, but He did not make Pharoah do anything against His will; that's not God's style.

Nah. God is the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe, the moral code hardwired into humans, and the solution for human suffering; God is the answer for the human longing that nothing on this earth ever quite satisfies.

There is no, I repeat, no archeological evidence for Israeli captivity in Egypt, and your last paragraph merely asserts your belief in the First Cause, which isn't feasible as a logical argument.

Atheists don't have all the answers. They never claimed to. They are simply smart enough to see narrative mellodrama for what it is. Now, science can be mellodramatic, but science is always open to changes in understanding and revising its explanations. Monotheists are stuck with a theology centuries old chock full of nonsensical prescriptions, and that is all doctrine is. Prescription.

Homosexuality is an abonimation in the Hebraic worldview. You would not last long in Western culture throwing that assertion around today.

I think it is also important to remember that religions are human constructs, and that is what makes them fallible. The problem with doctrine is that not all doctrine can be correct. If Protestants are right then that leaves a whole lot of people on the outside, and evangelicals have no problem with this. The elect fly up to god and the rest of us get to play Apocalypse, the Movie! If Jews are right and the Messiah is still to come then whoa, what happens to the carpenter who is Incarnate? If Muslims are right then heaven involves vestal virgins?

This is really why we need to think about new systems, seriously, like taking a new look at eastern religions.

As for God being the answer to human longing, I doubt it. Spiritual hysteria is very close in terms of feelings to sexual need. What do orgasms do when they happen? Think about it, about how rare as a joy making love with the right partner is, what happens when we let the earth move and lose control in the act of procreation.

These *states* probably assisted in our biological development as a species, and shamen wasted no time capitalizing on them as social groups formed and became more sophisticated. The East capitalized on this spirituality in a much more harmonious fashion than the Semitic-bedouin culture did.

I do not think even believers deny that one God asserts power, as does Christ, ultimately, though Christianity at first was about leveling the playing field. All were children of god. It broke open the closed system of the chosen--but even Jesus is ultimately about power, which is why humans have been able to abuse Christianity to their own ends.

[Drkshadow03]

The stories in Genesis and Exodus describe a character, whom I was taught was named Yahweh--in characterization, Yahweh comes off as insecure and in need of attention. He wants sacrifices in his name. Cattle cannot be deified. Why? How is a golden Baal a threat to this omnipotent being who has a covenant with one group of people?

It's just a material representation of an animal which was then and is now important to human survival.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say it here: Yahweh is much closer in portrayal to a comic book superhero than he is to any linguistic concept of a one god which simply is what it is for all eternity, and because Yahweh is a character portrayed by human authors who were limited to reaching for grandiose comparisons, this is not evidence of his unnamable divinity.

Now, if I said, Yo, big daddy, I have suffered with my disease enough for 46 years, let me get up and walk tomorrow totally cured, and he did it, and my body was perfect, then okay Drk, maybe I am wrong and your big daddy deserves my slavering abasement.

Until then, I think quarks are more interesting.

Well, Jozanny, I have no problem with you being an atheist. In fact, I have no problem with anyone being an atheist. Sam included. I'm not sure I've made that clear. Judaism for the most part has no proselytizing tradition; it's not my job to convert you, convince you, or save you.

As long as you're helping other people, not murdering others, and obeying the laws of the land, as far as I'm concerned you're doing G-d's work, whether you believe in Him or not.

I personally think G-d is more consistent than you seem to give credit in the Bible. I should also add I say that as an English major more than as a believing Jew.

I don't take the Bible to be the literal word of G-d. I believe rather the bible is a human written book that records man's experiences of G-d, thus it's divinely inspired, but not necessarily divenely written. I should point out those are two very different things. So even if one believed that G-d is depicted as inconsistent, there is plenty of room even within Theism on the grounds that different writers at different times had different experiences of G-d and different interpretations of those experiences based off how they could understand them and put them into human terms.

If I have any problem with atheists, however, it isn't that they disbelieve in the existence of G-d, it's there smug I'm smarter-than-thou attitude towards people who do. And anyone who doesn't think like I do must = ta stupidz!