What if it was created by God to evolve?

[John53]

Second, we don’t knock on doors and ‘threaten’ people! Grief!
If we did that, we wouldn’t be growing as fast as we are.
We try to “adorn” Divine teaching.. make it “attractive.” Titus 2:10

And we’re only doing, what Jesus commanded His followers to do. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 5:42.

Is that what you tell yourself so you can sleep at night?

 

[Colt]

1. there is no such thing as "atheist religion". Just like there is no such thing as a "married bachelor"

Flying Spaghetti Monster

"According to adherents, Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism) is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other".[4] It has received some limited recognition as such.[5][6][7][8][9]

As a cultural phenomenon​

A bottle of Flying Spaghetti Monster red wine
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster consisted of thousands of followers,[44] primarily concentrated on college campuses in North America and Europe.[62] According to the Associated Press, Henderson's website has become "a kind of cyber-watercooler for opponents of intelligent design". On it, visitors track meetings of pirate-clad Pastafarians, sell trinkets and bumper stickers, and sample photographs that show "visions" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[63]

2. i'm not aware of anyone ever claiming that physics and chemistry have "forethought" or anything of the sort.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
"Physics and chemistry create every day."

So congratulations on the fallacious combo points. You managed to include 2 different strawmen into a 20-word statement.

Your mind isn't serving you well.

 

[Colt]

So what? Do you think that your personal uneducated unqualified opinions carry any weight?



Right. Your "religious beliefs".
Why would science care about those?

I never made the claim that science cares about my beliefs. Real science is concerned only with facts not the religious beliefs of the scientist.


103:7.7 (1138.5) What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

103:7.8 (1138.6) The truth—an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values—can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth or for the mota of morontia personality.

103:7.9 (1139.1) The science of the material world enables man to control, and to some extent dominate, his physical environment. The religion of the spiritual experience is the source of the fraternity impulse which enables men to live together in the complexities of the civilization of a scientific age. Metaphysics, but more certainly revelation, affords a common meeting ground for the discoveries of both science and religion and makes possible the human attempt logically to correlate these separate but interdependent domains of thought into a well-balanced philosophy of scientific stability and religious certainty." UB 1955

 

[Brian2]

Such as?

God cannot be judged by anyone so in that respect God is not a moral agent.
God is the one who judges everyone else.
What would that category be?

You're making excuses. As per your own acknowledgement, he created a world knowing before hand that he was going to have to push the "reset button", engage in genocide, command people to go on genocidal and infanticidal killing sprees, etc.

Having said that, reading these myths, it is absolutely clear to me that he in fact did NOT know before hand that he was going to "have to" do such things. He was disappointed and felt the need to punish. This does not at all fit a story where he supposedly knew before hand what would and wouldn't happen.

God being displeased with how humans had changed to be doing evil all the times is fine. He know what they would do but that does not mean He was going to be happy with what they would do. He was displeased with humans and judged them.

If I set up a path where I KNOW with absolute certainty that this path would lead to my son committing murder and being a drug addict then I can not hold my son responsible for that. It is entirely my responsability. I KNEW what was going to happen and decided to go ahead with it anyway. And then I even punish him for it... He never stood a chance. He never had a choice. It was a set-up. A trap. A trap set by yours truely.

If that son is the only one involved then maybe. But there are always more people involved when God is judging people and God considers those people.
God has a right and probably a duty to get rid of the evil ones for the sake of the others. And if getting rid of the evil ones meant getting rid of innocents in the process, so be it. Death is not the end and everyone is judged individually later. In the meantime God can give some super riches and make others poor and needy.
God can give one person a wonderful life with health for 100 years and God can make others suffer in a short life.

It's absolutely insane, psychopathic, masochistic, irresponsible, immoral,...

Well yes, according to someone who does not see God for who and what He is. God is different and there is always an exception for Him because of He actually is the special case.

Suppose I have perfect foresight and KNOW that if I get my wife pregnant tonight, it would lead to the birth of Adolf Hitler who later on in life would be responsible for the massacre of 6 million jews.... Do you think I would make my wife pregnant tonight? Don't you think that I would wait till tomorrow so that such horror does not occur?

If you do something while KNOWING what horrible thing it would lead to.... why would you do it? Why would you not hold that agent accountable for those horrible things happening?

As I said, you judge God from ignorance of reasons that God has and without any idea of what and what God is and the authority He has and whether in the long run His actions can be seen as culpable.

Yes, you keep claiming that.
Can you support it / demonstrate it?
No. Let me guess: "you just gotta have faith"?

Well if I read a novel I can judge a character not just on what they do but on reasons for that etc etc.
In the case of the Bible God, skeptics go right for God's throat and ignore the overall story and reasons etc and then claim to be rational.

Which is letting us humans off the hook ....................................................

No not really. Christianity has repentance as part of it and walking the walk as best we can,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but we are not saved through our deeds because none of us can be good enough.
Letting us off the hook means just saying, "Do what you like, it's OK, I don't care, you're all saved anyway".

How in the world is punishing an innocent scapegoat and letting the guilty off the hook NOT letting the guilty of the hook?????
How in the world is that remotely "justice"?

As I said, we are off the hook when it comes to saving ourselves,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because we cannot pay the price for our sins.
But being faithful to the Lord is optional in our life.
Jesus came for people who know they are guilty and cannot be good, He loved us as sinners and came to lead us out of there to salvation and also a better life.
This is God's mercy and grace in action to overcome judgement that we deserve.
God knows we can't help ourselves but loves us anyway.
Where justice comes in is that Jesus, who did not deserve to die, died anyway and paid the price for all of us, because He was worth it.
And where justice for Jesus comes in is that Jesus He rose from the dead.

And let's not forget that the previous point still remains.... humans aren't "guilty". HE is responsible for the "wrong doings" of humans, since he set them up in a system where they had no other choice. He KNEW what would happen (according to you at least) by setting creation up the way he did. That future (according to you) was set in stone. No way to avoid it. So how are we in any way responsible for it?

Maybe it always was going to turn out this way, where the first humans sinned etc. What we have may be the best possible scenario for all we know.
But you are making the skeptic irrational thinking error that says that God knew about it and so it could not have happened any other way and so God forced people to sin because He knew what they would do.
So we are guilty for our actions. Even if God did not know it, the future was always going to be what it was going to be, so nobody is guilty of anything in a universe where God does not know the future.
But that just demonstrates the error in thinking that some people have about knowing the future.
And what are you complaining about anyway? Whether you say humans are guilty or not, God took the guilt on Himself. God was punished for us because He loves us so much.
Certainly in God's eyes humans are guilty and need a saviour.

I don't have to believe the characters in a story are actual real characters in order to evaluate the moral implications of said characters actions in said story.

We can perfectly have this exact same discussion about the morality of the character of Darth Vader from Star Wars or Thanos from the Marvel Universe.

This is yet another attempt of you to try and dodge the points made. As if my evaluations of the moral implication of the story aren't relevant because I don't think the story is non-fiction. It matters not.

It does matter if you don't analyse the whole story and the characters correctly and just concentrate on incidents in the story with no overview of the story and no insight into the character of God and who He is in the story and what His authority is and where the story is leading.

I never said that.
I'm only contesting the claim the he is the definition of moral behavior and goodness. He clearly isn't.
In morals, the ends don't necessarily justify the means. If that were the case, then it would be moral to develop AI nano-technology that attacks every single chinese person identified by their DNA in order to rid the world of more then a billion chinese people which would at least partially solve over population and at the same time get rid of the nation with the most carbon emissions. This would be a positive outcome for all future generations of human kind.

But morality doesn't work that way. It would be immoral to do that. Regardless of the "long term benefits" for the future of humanity.

True, at least for us, is that the imagined long term benefits are not justification for our actions.
God's actions in the Bible can be seen as consistent with a good God however.

Never said that either.
Clearly you are incapable of following a simple thought process. It's telling however that you need to resort to these types of strawman in order to try and defend yourself against the actual points made.
It tells me that you don't actually have a valid argument and that deep down, you know I'm right.

No I suppose you are guilty like everyone.
I guess the idea of God being responsible for all evil is just part of the the reasoning if there is a God.

I'm always responsible for my own actions regardless of gods existing. Regardless of immoral supernatural agents killing scapegoats to absolve me of my supposed "guilt".

I'm responsible for my wrongdoings. So is your god. So is every moral agent.
The point. You keep missing it.

I'm not the one who's trying to escape responsibility of my own actions. That would be christians who believe they were "saved" from their own guilt because some supposed "perfect" jew was killed 2 millenia ago.

Your "supposed" guilt. Are you responsible or not?
Christians acknowledge their guilt, no "supposed guilt" involved.

 

[Brian2]

Complete utter bs.

The very opposite is true.

Your idea of morality is no more or less then obedience to a perceived authority. "divine command theory" is the "morality" of psychopaths.
Actual moral agents to their own moral reasoning and don't require an authority to tell them what is and isn't moral.

I can confidently tell you that I am morally superior to the god described in the bible. And so are you.

We are a different type of being. We learn what is right and what is wrong from our parents and ultimately from our maker.
We are not the source of morality.

 

[Brian2]

Showing concern by killing billions of animals.

As we know, I don't see the flood as global, but whether global or not, without most animals gone, humans (Noah etc) would be the animals' dinners in no time.

 

[Brian2]

Showing concern by killing billions of animals.

As we know, I don't see the flood as global, but whether global or not, without most animals gone, humans (Noah etc) would be the animals' dinners in no time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Program rather than teach or train, which are indirect methods of accomplishing that end..

Program humans to not stray from a path of righteousness?
Doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of having independence/responsibility?

Your turn. What's that? A song:

No .. I'm purely saying that you are speaking in a context of having choice..
No choice, and you wouldn't be able to speak against what G-d had
programmed you to believe/do.

 

[chinu]

What if it was created by God to evolve? Does this mean we are all correct?

Yes.

Like; water evaporates from the sea -- fall on the mountains in the form of snow -- melts downs into rivers -- then again settle backs into the sea.

 

[Brian2]

The Abrahamic religions are dismal in their nihilism and pessimism, especially for man. Its god punishes man for being human but doesn't seem to ever reward man for the good he does. Imagine growing up with such a parent - continually punishing you for being human but never praising or rewarding you for the opposite.

The Law of Moses has plenty of both reward and punishment and punishment is not without plenty of warning and encouragement to do what is right.
Christianity is full of encouragement.
You look at what is being told to those outside the faith.

If the Jews accepted anybody as their Messiah, it would be on empirical grounds - the degree to which a given life conformed to messianic prophecy in the Torah. It ought to be meaningful to Christians that they don't, but it isn't. They don't really care what Talmudic scholars say.

Jesus is anathema for Jews for a number of reasons. The idea that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and died for our guilt and rose again and will come back is rational but not in the Jewish context of a Messiah and the context of Jesus being anathema.

Yes (first clause) and no (second). Order can arise spontaneously from chaos into what are called dissipative structures. They are far-from-equilibrium structures that channel energy more efficiently than the disordered air molecules of a balmy day. Ambient energy drives the process. The more heat in the oceans and atmosphere, the more common and large the tornadoes and hurricanes (atmospheric vortices) that form will be, and they'll cluster in the warmest times of the year. We have physical cause and effect. I've given you other examples, like vortices in water. The red dot on Jupiter is a dissipative structure (storm) that has been relatively stable for centuries. The hexagon on Saturn's north pole is another geometric structure organized from relative disorder by heat energy.

So the laws of physics tame the chaos into organised structures.

Like many others, I have knowledge there, and no faith is involved. I provided it already in this thread at post 142

Which part of post 142 are you referring to?
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-if-it-was-created-by-god-to-evolve.272025/post-8259927

I wrote, "if I see scripture as weak prophecy, does that not make the Bible NOT worth believing and therefore not reliable." You gave no answer. My answer is, yes, if prophecy is weak, one should not believe it came from a prescient source, and if you are honest with yourself, you'll see that this is the flipside of your belief that if the prophecies are fulfilled, that indicates a transhuman source for them.

And as I said, you have your own subjective views for not believing.
I see the prophecies as strong enough to accept.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science has nothing to do with revelation and religion.

I agree, but the citation describes the science of evolution awkwardly and with errors.

 

[Audie]

As we know, I don't see the flood as global, but whether global or not, without most animals gone, humans (Noah etc) would be the animals' dinners in no time.

Ah, so (iyo) it's only millions of Inoffensive creatures.
And only thousands of innocent babies.
From "god" that's the loving concern of a psychopath.

From you, its changing the clear language of the Bible to
conform a little closer to physical possibility.

 

[Audie]

The Law of Moses has plenty of both reward and punishment and punishment is not without plenty of warning and encouragement to do what is right.
Christianity is full of encouragement.
You look at what is being told to those outside the faith.



Jesus is anathema for Jews for a number of reasons. The idea that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and died for our guilt and rose again and will come back is rational but not in the Jewish context of a Messiah and the context of Jesus being anathema.



So the laws of physics tame the chaos into organised structures.



Which part of post 142 are you referring to?
What if it was created by God to evolve?


And as I said, you have your own subjective views for not believing.
I see the prophecies as strong enough to accept.

But- calling for self- appraisal- would equal strength
convince you for Scientology predictions?

Look up " anathema" in your dictionry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Flying Spaghetti Monster

"According to adherents, Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism) is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other".[4] It has received some limited recognition as such.[5][6][7][8][9]

As a cultural phenomenon​

A bottle of Flying Spaghetti Monster red wine
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster consisted of thousands of followers,[44] primarily concentrated on college campuses in North America and Europe.[62] According to the Associated Press, Henderson's website has become "a kind of cyber-watercooler for opponents of intelligent design". On it, visitors track meetings of pirate-clad Pastafarians, sell trinkets and bumper stickers, and sample photographs that show "visions" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[63]

Have you ever heard about "satire"?

It Aint Necessarily So said:
"Physics and chemistry create every day."

Read the quote you are replying to. Does it say "create"? No. It says "forethought".
Focus.

Your mind isn't serving you well.

Isn't it? It seems like it does. Especially considering you just doubled down on those 2 strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never made the claim that science cares about my beliefs. Real science is concerned only with facts not the religious beliefs of the scientist.

Then what are you doing discussing science with your religious arguments as if they are relevant to the subject matter?

103:7.7 (1138.5) What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

103:7.8 (1138.6) The truth—an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values—can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth or for the mota of morontia personality.

103:7.9 (1139.1) The science of the material world enables man to control, and to some extent dominate, his physical environment. The religion of the spiritual experience is the source of the fraternity impulse which enables men to live together in the complexities of the civilization of a scientific age. Metaphysics, but more certainly revelation, affords a common meeting ground for the discoveries of both science and religion and makes possible the human attempt logically to correlate these separate but interdependent domains of thought into a well-balanced philosophy of scientific stability and religious certainty." UB 1955

There you go again.

 

[shunyadragon]

So chaos organises itself and there is no cause in the underlying principles of physics?

It Aint Necessarily So said:
We know that happens. We see evidence of self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems in nature, such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Energy causes them to organize from chaotic patterns of molecules typical of a still atmosphere, each moving independently of the others and colliding with one another into an organized funnel of swirling molecules moving together at high speeds. Nobody organized that except nature. And living organisms are also a self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems. The chemicals in a living thing exhibit a complexity not found in the elements before they organized themselves in an egg or womb or whatever nor afterward following death. In between, a living thing is like a hurricane, channeling ambient energy. It's why vortices appear in rivers. They dissipate energy more efficiently.

@It Aint Necessarily So's statement is very good, except he made an error describing 'chaotic patterns in molecules' and you perpetuated the misconception of chaos.

Nothing in our physical existence is chaotic, Everything is fractal following 'Chaos Theory.' The underlying causes for the principles of Physics are Natural Laws.

What anyone believes about the origins of life is believed by faith and isn't knowledge.

Your lack of knowledge concerning the sciences of abiogenesis is glaringly apparent.

But you believe it anyway even though you say it is never proven. You make that leap of faith as I do.

Without a God there is no basis for absolute rights and wrongs.

There is no such thing as proof in science.

There is no basis for absolute right and wrong regardless, The descriptions of morals like slavery and ethnic cleansing by Divine command in the Bible are clear examples. Is slavery morally wrong?

I have evidence for my beliefs but you believe my evidence is not evidence. That must be a faith based belief.

You need to acknowledge it is faith-based belief and not evidence.

I'm tired of making arguments.

Then do not make up arguments based on ancient tribal text.

 

[Colt]

Then what are you doing discussing science with your religious arguments as if they are relevant to the subject matter?



There you go again.

Subductionzone had asked me why creation was obvious.

The OP in this thread ponders weather God created life to evolve. I believe that to be the case.

 

[Colt]

Have you ever heard about "satire"?




Read the quote you are replying to. Does it say "create"? No. It says "forethought".
Focus.



Isn't it? It seems like it does. Especially considering you just doubled down on those 2 strawmen.

Your spaghetti religion is registered as a religion. Have you ever heard of irony? But yes, I do realize that you are here to mock religion and that the spaghetti religion was created to do the same. All mocking aside, the Atheist religion is a "belief" which try's to justify itself with science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God cannot be judged by anyone so in that respect God is not a moral agent.

That's clearly false, since I just did exactly that.
I think you are confusing "can't" with "not allowed to (in your opinion)".

If your god isn't a moral agent, then he is amoral and robotic. Also unable to make any kind of moral judgement about anything or anyone.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot.

God is the one who judges everyone else.
What would that category be?

Psychopath? Sociopath? AI robot?

God being displeased with how humans had changed to be doing evil all the times is fine. He know what they would do but that does not mean He was going to be happy with what they would do. He was displeased with humans and judged them.

Which is retarded an immoral. I already explained why.
It's like if I would get my wife pregnant while knowing in advance a mass murdering Hitler would be the result and then be "displeased" with his behavior and punishing him for it. It's ridiculous. He never had a choice, since I knew in advance what would happen. I set it up. I knew what he would grow up to be and went along with it anyway. It would be entirely my fault.

Not to mention the implication for free will, if that mass murdering Hitler's actions were already determined even before he was born.

I can only repeat myself.... if I knew in advance that getting my wife pregnant on day X would result in unleashing a Hitler upon the world.... I wouldn't get her pregnant on day X. You see, I actually have some moral responsibility. Knowing the horrible result, I would immediately stop myself. That is the moral thing to do.

But your god doesn't seem to care. Which makes sense if you are of the opinion that he isn't a moral agent. A robot wouldn't care either. He'ld just carry out his program. To "care" is not part of an amoral agent's vocabulary.

But you also claim your god is loving. So once again, we have a self-refuting belief.

If that son is the only one involved then maybe. But there are always more people involved when God is judging people and God considers those people.
God has a right and probably a duty to get rid of the evil ones for the sake of the others. And if getting rid of the evil ones meant getting rid of innocents in the process, so be it.

The moral bankrupcy of apologists never ceases to amaze me.

Death is not the end and everyone is judged individually later. In the meantime God can give some super riches and make others poor and needy.
God can give one person a wonderful life with health for 100 years and God can make others suffer in a short life.

Like an amoral psychopathic overlord playing with an ant farm for his own entertainment.
What swell persona.

Well yes, according to someone who does not see God for who and what He is. God is different and there is always an exception for Him because of He actually is the special case.

And the special pleading continues. It's like a celestial north korea. There are "special rules" for the Dear Leader.

As I said, you judge God from ignorance of reasons that God has and without any idea of what and what God is and the authority He has and whether in the long run His actions can be seen as culpable.

And we arrive at moral bankrupcy argument nr 98434864: "might makes right".

Well if I read a novel I can judge a character not just on what they do but on reasons for that etc etc.
In the case of the Bible God, skeptics go right for God's throat and ignore the overall story and reasons etc and then claim to be rational.

I did not ignore the "overall story". In fact, it's on that very basis that I form my judgement.

No not really.

Yes, really. It's literally that. Punishing a scapegoat while letting the actual guilty go free.

Letting us off the hook means just saying, "Do what you like, it's OK, I don't care, you're all saved anyway".

Yes, that's exactly what christianity is.
Adolf Hitler can have a death bed conversion and "repent" and he's off the hook.

Meanwhile, according to that same christian doctrine, a stand up moral atheist who only has minor transgressions like a white lie left and right who dies as an unbeliever, gets eternal torture or whatever it is that you believe to be the "punishment".

Moral bankrupcy from start to finish.

As I said, we are off the hook when it comes to saving ourselves,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because we cannot pay the price for our sins.
But being faithful to the Lord is optional in our life.
Jesus came for people who know they are guilty and cannot be good, He loved us as sinners and came to lead us out of there to salvation and also a better life.
This is God's mercy and grace in action to overcome judgement that we deserve.
God knows we can't help ourselves but loves us anyway.
Where justice comes in is that Jesus, who did not deserve to die, died anyway and paid the price for all of us, because He was worth it.
And where justice for Jesus comes in is that Jesus He rose from the dead.

True mercy is to just forgive people without requiring innocent people to be killed as a "sacrifice".
Also, mercy and justice can not co-exist. Mercy is the suspension of justice.

Another self-refuting aspect of your religion.

But you are making the skeptic irrational thinking error that says that God knew about it and so it could not have happened any other way and so God forced people to sin because He knew what they would do.

There's nothing irrational about that. If you have perfect foreknowledge, then that literally means it can't turn out any other way. From that it follows that the future is set in stone. Meaning every future action taken, every future decision made, is already known before it occurs.

That LITERALLY means that you have no choice in what you do and decide. At best, you only have the illusion of such. That even includes your feelings of repentance.
It includes everything and anything.

Either the future is predetermined or it isn't.
Perfect foreknowledge can only exist in a universe that is predetermined from start to finish.
To have free will, the ability to freely chose between A and B by definition means that your decision is only known for certain once you made it. Not before that.

Suppose your god knows that next year I will grab a kalashnikov, go to work, and gun down all my collegues. Tell me: do I have the actual ability to not do it? I would prove god's fore-knowledge wrong if I were to decide to back out of it, right? So how could I? He could only "know" that future if that action of mine is predetermined.

You can't have it both ways.

And what are you complaining about anyway?

I'm not complaining. I'm just point out the self-refuted concept of god you are pitching.
Obviously I have nothing to complain about because to me this is just like debating the morality of Thanos in the Marvel universe.

Thanos and marvel have less plot holes then the bible myths though.

Whether you say humans are guilty or not, God took the guilt on Himself. God was punished for us because He loves us so much.
Certainly in God's eyes humans are guilty and need a saviour.

Again, by his own fault. You haven't said anything to show otherwise.
In context of this lore, the "crime" we seem to be guilty of is to exist as humans.

As The Hitch once so famously said: "Created sick and commanded to be well".

It does matter if you don't analyse the whole story and the characters correctly and just concentrate on incidents in the story with no overview of the story and no insight into the character of God and who He is in the story and what His authority is and where the story is leading.

I took all of that into account.
The only difference between you and me is that I have no incentive to be apologetic about it.

True, at least for us, is that the imagined long term benefits are not justification for our actions.
God's actions in the Bible can be seen as consistent with a good God however.

In my world, no act of genocide or infanticide can ever be consistent with "good" anything.

You'ld have to be morally bankrupt to think otherwise in my view.

No I suppose you are guilty like everyone.

Of what? Being a human?

I guess the idea of God being responsible for all evil is just part of the the reasoning if there is a God.

No. If that is what you took from the points I raised then indeed none of it properly registered in your head.
I'm talking in context of the story. For the sake of points, I'm assuming it is all true.

Again, we are perfectly capable of doing so.
We can also debate the moral character of Thanos from the Marvel Universe. There is no need to actually believe it is all reality in order to do so.

Your "supposed" guilt. Are you responsible or not?

In my view of reality, everyone is always responsible for his own actions and decisions.
In my view of reality, no amount of scapegoating can ever absolve people of such responsibility.

In context of the biblical lore as you are presenting it, clearly god himself is responsible since he deliberatly set everything up to play out according to "his plan" and we puny humans aren't capable of having it play out in another way.

Christians acknowledge their guilt, no "supposed guilt" involved.

Yeah, christianity is a giant guilt trip coupled with emotional blackmail.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We are a different type of being. We learn what is right and what is wrong from our parents

And our peers and ourselves.

and ultimately from our maker.

Not at all.

Your "maker" had no issues with slavery. I'll assume that you do. that by itself already makes you morally superior.

We are not the source of morality.

Yes we are.