• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where in the Bible is the Christian God Cruel and/or Incompetent...

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"atrocities" -- would be that way...except if...

... -> God simply reverses all death, and and gives everyone not having heard the gospel a chance at repentance:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits
....
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."
1rst Peter chapters 3 and 1 Peter 4 NIV
This is the start of the legend that Jesus spent Saturday on the 'harrowing of hell'. (1 Peter is a pseudepigraph, for what it's worth.)
Ergo, the objections about genocide, atrocities, and so on just simply assume God isn't doing what the bible says He is doing....
The accusation is that God does things on earth that are atrocities, even should [his] conscience catch up later.

What kind of a God says stuff like ─

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (and again at 20:16)
or commands Moses to say to his army ─

Numbers 31:1 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
or engineers human sacrifices to [him]self such as Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11) or the 'sons of Saul' (2 Samuel 21) ─ let alone Jesus.
In other words, that's a 'god' unlike the one in the bible, when people are just killed and it's the final death, and they didn't even hear the gospel message or such.
Why on earth was the 'gospel message' withheld from Adam? From Abraham? From Moses? From Solomon or David?

And who was Jesus to tell the Jews anything? He no more fitted the Tanakh's concept of a messiah than I do, and instead of being savior of the Jewish nation he began two millennia of often murderous Christian antisemitism, starting with the author of John.
You can see that version of 'god' was (accidentally) a strawman, in essence. But, that's really good news -- it shows how very gracious He is, as illustrated here:
That's snakeoil salesmanship ─ You're doomed and only I can save you: all you have to do is kiss my ─ ahm ─ foot. Oh, and pay the man over there.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Then people like you or me have a chance too. Which is called the 'good news' -- that even all of us that did plenty of wrongs can be redeemed if we merely trust in Christ with faith in repentance for forgiveness for all we have done wrong, in all our lives until now(!)....
But what will happen to the 69% of people in the world who do not believe in Christ? Is it 'bad news' for them?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Why is it illogical to say that there is a God that is both omnipotent and good? Why can't an omnipotent God also be good?
Nothing illogical about it at all -- certainly an omnipotent God could be good. The question is rather, is the one that we are presented with in the Bible both omnipotent and good.

I would vote "no," for reasons I've articulated to the unhearing believers for more years than I care to count.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You just presented a circular argument that makes the entire qualification of the morality of your god pointless.
God does not have to be qualified to be moral because God is not SUBJECT to morality.
You claim that God cannot be judged which is hilariously false, your god is a monster in my opinion. He makes little baby animals murder each other in a constant and desperate race for survival. I just judged your deity so he can be judged.
God can be judged because everyone has free will to judge, but God cannot be held accountable for anything and is not answerable to anyone because God is at the top of the totem pole. God does not make little baby animals murder each other in a constant and desperate race for survival, but since God set nature up this way God is responsible for that.
What makes it so meaningless is that on one hand you claim that your God can't be judged yet you judge him good based on the fact your messenger told you that your god has goodwill toward humans in some vague fashion.
Who said that I judged God as good? I believe that God is good based upon what the Messengers of God say but nevertheless I judge God mercilessly because I dislike the way He created this world, which is a storehouse of suffering that is very unevenly distributed. On the other hand, I realize that I am wrong to judge God and that these are just my feelings; and I know I am wrong, because logically speaking an All-Knowing and All-Wise God has to know more and be wiser than I am. Also, aside from what is in scriptures, there are things that I do not know regarding why God created the world this way so in my more lucid moments I am able to accept that reality.
Trailblazer said: Why is it illogical to say that there is a God that is both omnipotent and good? Why can't an omnipotent God also be good?

Because there is such a thing as a bad thing happening to conscious beings, be they human or other species of animals. Since bad, undesirable, harmful and terrible things happen to these and that your deity would have the power to save them all (or at the very least one) without any effort and at no risk for himself and does not, he can't be good in any meaningful sense of the term.
This has nothing to do with God being omnipotent, thus God having the power to save everyone or anyone from every bad thing (or should I say what you consider bad, undesirable, harmful and terrible) without any effort. This really is related to how God set this world up in the first place. God created this world such that it would engender challenges and result in both joy and suffering. If God had planned to rescue everyone from suffering, God would not have created a world where there is suffering. God also gave humans free will, so humans are responsible for the moral choices they make that result in suffering. Other suffering we are compelled to endure because it is inherent in a material world where we have physical bodies and we have to struggle to survive.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248
Then he is a moral agent with a moral agency and behavior because he does stuff and for specific reasons, with a specific objectives. That gives him a personality and makes your god a person in a wide sense of the term. Animals have behavior and they are not humans. Hell, bacterias and plants also have behaviors.
God has a Mind and a Will and a Purpose for humans but God is not a moral agent. A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm. God does not cause harm just because God does not prevent harm, since preventing harm is no=t God’s responsibility; it is a human responsibility.

God does not have to “discern” right from wrong because God is All-Knowing, so God already knows what is right and wrong for humans. By contrast, humans are not all-Knowing, so they have to discern right from wrong.

In a sense you are right. According to my religious beliefs God has a kind of a personality, but that does not make God a human.

“While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:
What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.” [15][16]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_the_Bahai Faith
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Nothing illogical about it at all -- certainly an omnipotent God could be good. The question is rather, is the one that we are presented with in the Bible both omnipotent and good.

I would vote "no," for reasons I've articulated to the unhearing believers for more years than I care to count.
I thank the real God that I do not believe in the anthropomorphic god as presented in the Bible.
If I believed that anthropomorphic god existed I would also vote "no" on good for reasons I've articulated to the unhearing believers and the nonbelievers for more years than I care to count.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
All this I understand, and this is all fine, taking the perspective of "God owns everything" and viewing the Earth and all its inhabitants from that perspective.

However, from the human perspective, we're not just going to sit idly by while some tyrannical overlord (even though he can "do as He likes") is attempting to destroy everything we hold dear, are we? Is that what you would do? I, for one, would challenge the actions. That's the first, and easiest thing I would do - even if it were completely ineffectual. To just throw one's hands in the air and say "Well... He owns it, so I guess it's fine that I am, and everything I love is, about to be obliterated."

And so it is from the human perspective of what constitutes an acceptable action that humans most often judge activity that involves humans. And rightly so. Is it possible to see things from other perspectives? Sure. Is that always advantageous to the survival and well-being of humans? No. Case in point? God's supposed actions throughout many a Biblical tale. I posit that viewing things "from God's perspective" is just about the only way to get past all the atrocities that the thing called "God" commits in the stories of the Bible and come out still desiring to worship the ridiculous thing.

Yes, that is correct. The bible really only cares about God's perspective. That is why he is the one who determines morality. That is why it is a book about his plan and nobody elses.

Now yes, you can challenge his actions, which is what Satan and Eve did, but we see how that went. So good luck with that.

It is really a case of "do as you are told or die" (or burn in hell for eternity?). The creations perspective means nothing because God knows everything and is always right as he determines what is right in the first place.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Matthew:-
{10:34} Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not
to send peace, but a sword. {10:35} For I am come to set a
man at variance against his father, and the daughter against
her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law. {10:36} And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own
household.

It goes on.......... and on......
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
......... and on ..... and on......

Luke:
{22:36} Then said he unto them, But now, he that
hath a purse, let him take [it,] and likewise [his] scrip: and
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Nothing illogical about it at all -- certainly an omnipotent God could be good. The question is rather, is the one that we are presented with in the Bible both omnipotent and good.

I would vote "no," for reasons I've articulated to the unhearing believers for more years than I care to count.

In the Bible God defines what is good and bad. So God is omnipotent and good. The opening story in Genesis shows the bibles viewpoint is that it is not mans place to decide that. What the creation sees as good or bad is irrelevent. Whether god says that hugging people is good or massacring whole nations, including infants and animals, is good, it is his definition of morality that is correct. Since good and bad are religious terms and outside of religions they are applied subjectively, then your morality argument is pointless.

(That is why I never use the moral argument. It is way too subjective. I prefer to ask for sufficient evidence of God, which we do not possess at the moment, to deny the existence of specific gods).
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I read the Bible, Quran, Gita, Book of Mormon, Hadith etc.
...and on the Bible I did so more than a dozen times. I actually summarised it too.
Yet, when ever I speak to non Christians, inclusive of Atheists, they try to turn the Christian philosophy of a loving God, especially Jesus, on its head with an argument that ...

"If Jesus is one of the Trinity, then it was Him who comitted atrocities, genocide, murder etc."
Another argument is that Christians believe in a loving God, but turns this thinking of God around with the question...

Why would a loving God create people, just so that they should die, get cancer, suffer..." and so on.

I have been thinking of these accusations and can not agree that the "Christian God" is accountable for these heardships and pain. The Bible actually gives the answers, and I found that it is only a very superficial reasoning that is claimed by people who never read the Bible on these questions, to find an answer.

Perhaps someone would supply me with a simple example, to enable me to see what they are talking about. If it is true that God is this immoral being, I want to know about such evidence.

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.(Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.
(Hosea 13:16)

etc. etc.

But He loves us.... Lucky us.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
I read the Bible, Quran, Gita, Book of Mormon, Hadith etc.
...and on the Bible I did so more than a dozen times. I actually summarised it too.
Yet, when ever I speak to non Christians, inclusive of Atheists, they try to turn the Christian philosophy of a loving God, especially Jesus, on its head with an argument that ...

"If Jesus is one of the Trinity, then it was Him who comitted atrocities, genocide, murder etc."
Another argument is that Christians believe in a loving God, but turns this thinking of God around with the question...

Why would a loving God create people, just so that they should die, get cancer, suffer..." and so on.

I have been thinking of these accusations and can not agree that the "Christian God" is accountable for these heardships and pain. The Bible actually gives the answers, and I found that it is only a very superficial reasoning that is claimed by people who never read the Bible on these questions, to find an answer.

Perhaps someone would supply me with a simple example, to enable me to see what they are talking about. If it is true that God is this immoral being, I want to know about such evidence.
these posts are not fruitful I'm afraid.
All that happens is that atheists come in and present three what they call atrocities each, and then they present 2 of what they would call contradictions each... and then they make it clear that they don't like the character as presented in the Bible for 2 other reasons.
So you end up having a thread with
* tens of "atrocities"
* ten "contradictions"
* ten "mistakes"
* ten "weaknesses"
of the Highest.
Now who is going to debate this in one thread? You?

From my experience, the problem in these kinds of debates often comes down to the hurling elephants fallacy.
Once you settled the issue for one of these what they call contradictions, they bring two new ones to the table. And once you settled these they cite cite four others of them... if you would go on to dicuss these, the next thing they probably would do is present 8 of them up to the point that the whole thread is overwhelming and they claim victory on the subject level.

Now, what you're doing here is inviting everyone to skip steps 1-5 and fill their lists with hundreds of items.
Have fun with the elephants. Where are your replies?
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
these posts are not fruitful I'm afraid.
All that happens is that atheists come in and present three what they call atrocities each, and then they present 2 of what they would call contradictions each... and then they make it clear that they don't like the character as presented in the Bible for 2 other reasons.
So you end up having a thread with
* tens of "atrocities"
* ten "contradictions"
* ten "mistakes"
* ten "weaknesses"
of the Highest.
Now who is going to debate this in one thread? You?

From my experience, the problem in these kinds of debates often comes down to the hurling elephants fallacy.
Once you settled the issue for one of these what they call contradictions, they bring two new ones to the table. And once you settled these they cite cite four others of them... if you would go on to dicuss these, the next thing they probably would do is present 8 of them up to the point that the whole thread is overwhelming and they claim victory on the subject level.

Now, what you're doing here is inviting everyone to skip steps 1-5 and fill their lists with hundreds of items.
Have fun with the elephants. Where are your replies?

You make a good point here. The questions and answers don't even address the fundamental heart of the issue at all because all one gets is nothing conclusive but a variety of optional understandings of a text.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
In the Bible God defines what is good and bad. So God is omnipotent and good. The opening story in Genesis shows the bibles viewpoint is that it is not mans place to decide that. What the creation sees as good or bad is irrelevent. Whether god says that hugging people is good or massacring whole nations, including infants and animals, is good, it is his definition of morality that is correct. Since good and bad are religious terms and outside of religions they are applied subjectively, then your morality argument is pointless.

(That is why I never use the moral argument. It is way too subjective. I prefer to ask for sufficient evidence of God, which we do not possess at the moment, to deny the existence of specific gods).
Yes, but for me, the Bible is actually what humans thought what God thinks. Therefore, all such arguments are meaningless.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
these posts are not fruitful I'm afraid.
All that happens is that atheists come in and present three what they call atrocities each, and then they present 2 of what they would call contradictions each... and then they make it clear that they don't like the character as presented in the Bible for 2 other reasons.
So you end up having a thread with
* tens of "atrocities"
* ten "contradictions"
* ten "mistakes"
* ten "weaknesses"
of the Highest.
Now who is going to debate this in one thread? You?

From my experience, the problem in these kinds of debates often comes down to the hurling elephants fallacy.
Once you settled the issue for one of these what they call contradictions, they bring two new ones to the table. And once you settled these they cite cite four others of them... if you would go on to dicuss these, the next thing they probably would do is present 8 of them up to the point that the whole thread is overwhelming and they claim victory on the subject level.

Now, what you're doing here is inviting everyone to skip steps 1-5 and fill their lists with hundreds of items.
Have fun with the elephants. Where are your replies?
However, since the text in question does, in fact, contain all of those atrocities, contradictions, mistakes and weaknesses, what are we left with?

The Bible is the work of humans -- that much is plainly evident (as is the Qur'an and every other "holy scripture" ever written). As such, all those books show what some (not all) humans think. And when other humans think something other, what is there to settle the argument? Why, nothing at all -- unless it is our good sense!

However, how can "good sense" ever gain a foothold, when each side starts with "here is my truth about God, and it is true because I believe it." When your opening axiom is based on nothing at all, you can wind up arguing anything you want -- and its opposite!
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
while I believe that the Bible is the Word of God
However, since the text in question does, in fact, contain all of those atrocities, contradictions, mistakes and weaknesses, what are we left with?
well, anyone can lead a discussion in a reasonable way. There is no sense in writing lists of a hundred points of contentions and expecting a reasonable debate in a forum.
In any forum. This simply does not work, as I see it.
It's better to have a hundred seperate threads for the estimated 300 issues. So you have the chance of going into detail if required.

In my answer I was focussing on the make-up of this thread. That's all.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
The flooding of the world is pretty incompetent, given that God created all these things and "he saw it was good". Keeping in mind that God is all knowing, all good and omnipotence.

One would assume that he could create or at least thrive towards creating something that at least remotely reassemble what he perceive as being good, both before, during and in the future.

Genesis 6:5-8
5 - The LORD saw that human evil was growing more and more throughout the earth, with every inclination of people's thoughts becoming only evil on a continuous basis.
6 - Then the LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and he was deeply grieved about that.
7 - So the LORD said, "I will annihilate these human beings whom I've created from the earth, including people, animals, crawling things, and flying birds, because I'm grieving that I made them."
8 - The LORD was pleased with Noah, however.

God ought to already know this, so not really sure how he can regret anything or grieve. And rather than correcting his own mistake or do it right the first time, he decide that the best possible option is to kill everything. What exactly did the animals do?
But lets look from God's point of view.
1. God made everything perfect.
2. And God made man to be the occupant of the Earth, and to do well with what God created.
3. God gave Man free will, otherwise Man was nothing more than a pre programmed being worse than a lapdog trained to do what He wanted.
4. By having free will, Man had the choice to be a moral being, or to be a Godless being no more than a greedy, murdere, rapist, and thief. What would prevent any person not believing in a Creator who he will meet one day, to simply take what he wants? Nothing.
Now, in this point of view, lets look at the flood.

The whole world was corruptwith murder, idolatory, human sacrifice, and worse, and the Bible is clear...

Only Noah was found to be rightious and blameless....
Not even his wife, his sons and saughter in laws were rightious.

It would have been one more generation, and there would be no rightious person on the face of the earth, if God did not step in and did something.
Well, God gave them life, and a choice, and He has the right to take action to save the one person who deserved to be the ancestor of all humans on Earth.

I cant understand that any person would accuse God of killing the whole world, as if it was an immoral thing to do.
Then on the other hand accuse God of allowing these same immoral acts by humans, and making him guilty of that too.
In the accusers strategy, God is damned if He sits back and do nothing, and He is damned if He does something.
If he allows murder, rape, torture, slavery, etc. God is accountable. If God then judges the perpetrator, He is BAD.

It remains a point of an attempting to accuse the Christians of their God being bad by claiming ignorance, and building a straw puppet to destroy, hoping God was destroyed.

it simply does not work in this way, ...
And take care, it is a terrible thing for the Godless, to be caught in the hands of God!
He will judge us all fairly.

To close off,
I never hear how much God cared for the one man He saved, for he could simply have had Noah also drowned.
and for this reason you should also be gratefull to God, for if God did kill Noah with the rest, you would not be here to state this accusation.

Oh, and God even felt bad for having to kill everyone anyway.
Just think what He had to go through in carrying out the rightious judgement He had to sanction.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
We call this the mystery of the Trinity.
Mystery enough by my account that you can't possibly know for certain that "Jesus was God."

And even then, let's not forget your original words that started us on this particular path:
halbhh said:
Would a tyrant suffer our attacks and evils against himself without striking back?
Now, with your mention of Jesus, and Jesus being God, I see this quote of yours in a new light. It seems like you may have been implying that, because Jesus (aka God) suffered blows at the hands of humans that He could not possibly be a tyrant, because what tyrant would put up with such abuse, right? The super duper obvious problem here being that God is known to "strike back" for what would appear to be items far less personal to Himself - some of which have been discussed in this thread already. Examples: The Flood, the night of Passover, the mauling of children by bears that was implied to be God's doing, the supposed consequences of Original Sin, sending people to hell for any reason He does so. God strikes back, in other words, and to claim otherwise is pure idiocy.

Now, if instead you were, with that quote, admitting that God is a tyrant, and that His striking back is just an obvious extension of being a tyrant (this was actually what I initially took the quote to mean) then this doesn't really work in the favor of arguments for God's greatness, in my opinion, and we get back to the idea that I do not feel comfortable pledging my allegiance to a being whose actions often show very little care for mass numbers of human lives - nor do I feel that anyone should be comfortable pledging such allegiance.

Want to rate this one "funny" as well @Trailblazer? Want to claim that I am violating "logic 101 stuff?" Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Atheist have the Idea of god literally written in scripture who has killed many people and will only save those who believe and turn away from those who don't. This edict is mentioned repeatedly in the bible more than jesus' talk of love.

Atheist do not believe God exist so the only way we know "about him" is Written in scripture not said by god.

Christians believe God is real not an idea of him. They feel god actually speaks "by" scripture making scripture not a story written About god, but the literal voice of god.

Atheists do not believe this.

So atheists are not attacking an actual god that christians believe. Christians translate god in many ways. They attack the idea of god as written (not said) in a book.

Attacking what's written in scriptures is not attacking the christian god just what authors wrote about him.

That said, it is written in scripture god killed a lot of people. We are talking of what's written not the literal god christians believe.

We can't speak against something/one that does not exist just whats written about that something/one.

Try not to confuse the two.

An attack on scripture is not an attack on God just what's written about him not the christian's god himself.
I do not agree with your postulation that the atheist attacks the Bible, and therefore not the Christian God.
It is the Bible that I am using to define who God is!
It is so to say the same as telling me that I am still a good person, but my CV is a total corruption.
Nope, if my Biography is a description of me, and the Biography shows my immoral actions, (for instance if I was Hitler or Stalin) then you cant say Hitler and Stalin or I are still good guys.

Let me make it very clear.
The Christian God, is the Biblical God.
Old and New Testament.
Any Christian or atheist who thinks different, created their own Idol, and are guilty of idolatory.
The Christian God is YHWH, the Father, YHWH Ruach, and Yhaweshua, the Word.

if you dont accept the above, be free to accuse that god of whatever you want, but as soon as you speak about the Biblical God, the Trinity, you are speaking of Elohim YHWH.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Yes, that is correct. The bible really only cares about God's perspective. That is why he is the one who determines morality. That is why it is a book about his plan and nobody elses.

Now yes, you can challenge his actions, which is what Satan and Eve did, but we see how that went. So good luck with that.

It is really a case of "do as you are told or die" (or burn in hell for eternity?). The creations perspective means nothing because God knows everything and is always right as he determines what is right in the first place.
I really wish more Christians could understand that this is exactly what they are placing on a pedestal as literally "the greatest thing" in the universe.

And I will, and do challenge God. From the perspective of Christians, who tend to believe that "God is working through them" - I actively challenge their ideas at all times, and will continue to do so because I find their ideas to be some of the lowliest garbage that human kind has been able to muster. And so, there I am, day in and day out ready to challenge the workings of God through the humans who hail as Christian. So, yes, "we'll see how it goes." So far, it has been 100% fine. Judging by the emotional toil of most (if not all) of those around me, which I tend not to experience (not an exaggeration or hyperbole - I wish I could truly share this with you somehow, but it is one of those things you would just have to take my word on), I have only been able to imagine that the threats I receive from Christians (and some others) of negative consequences bound to befall my life for all the anti-religious vitriol I spew on a pretty consistent basis, are just the empty, ridiculous words of fools who have no idea what they are saying. And I will continue to believe so until such time as all this crap is DEMONSTRATED to be in comport with reality. Not a moment sooner.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Maybe some of these are what you want
Bible Atrocities: Atrocities in the Bible
And I worked throug each and every one, and could not find God wrong in his actions.
But you are welcome to give me an example of one that you think might prove the point.
I visited that website for years, and again see the superficial ignorance of an atheist that lookes at the judgements of God and claimed it to be cruel.

What do you say.
If we were to visit Death row, and see how these people wait for their appeals, or the actual day of execution, will you then claim this to be cruel and immoral?
and will you make a summary of the people who were executed by the state and say the state is immoral?

Or will you also look at the offences of the convicted killer who perhaps raped, and murdered inocent lives?
Will you agree with the death penalty for a man who raped and killed a 6 year old, after he slit the childs mother's throat, after he shot her husband?

I would love to see how anyone can think the above offender should have more humane treatment than his victims.
I would love to learn which ignorant person would accuse a judge and jury of immorality for sending the man to his death.
Do you agree?
 
Top