Romans 9:9-13 Proves Christainity is Evil

Though, it seems strange. Why curse beings with a will of their own if you know that the free will you unfortunately gave them would cause some of those beings to fail? It appears more as if free will is a detriment to human existence.

Something else I've wondered, why would God sacrifice Jesus to save humanity from a danger that He allowed to exist in the first place?

 

The intent of all religions is to coerce people into obedience. They provide a standard of acceptable behavior that people have to comply with if they are to avoid eternal damnation by the cult's designated deity. The religion also provides jobs and increased status for the people who spread the doctrine and enforce the rules.

In the case of Yeshua (aka Jesus since 1630) Yahweh (the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies) wasn't sacrificed to save all of humanity but to only save the Jews. The biblical ethnocentric religious fairy tale is all about the rules that the Jews are supposed to follow. Generally speaking, Gentiles probably follow just one or two of the hundreds of rules in the Bible. They ignore all of the others.

 

Good thing then that I didn't say "Tell that to First Isaiah."

 

God did not create Adam and Eve to fail. God created Adam and Eve in His image, with free will, they were intended to live forever, and there was no sin in the world. Satans intervention changed that situation. God's plan of salvation was introduced to remove the world from its sinful condition.

The real questions are did God know that Satan would intervene? If He did, then why did He allow it? Could He stop Satan? Does God allow this condition because a faulty world results in better people (the hotter the fire, the stronger the steel" analogy)?

 

I don't need to delve into Kierkegaard, I refuted your argument in the short reply I provided.

You can observe peoples response to love and hate, but you cannot observe peoples response to their religious beliefs? Were the Crusades a dream? Was it all photo shopping when the Christians who would not renounce their Christian faith were beheaded by the ISIS terrorists? Your bias blinds you.

No, once again you miss the entire issue. I have made a rational decision that the Bible represents Gods word, and having decided that it is the Truth, I act according to that Truth.

integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

Sacrilegious? Believing in a religion and then violating those religious beliefs is sacrilegious. Look up the word, also look up "integrity" while you are at it.

 

Well unfortunately this isn't even close to being true. Not only did you not refute my argument, you didn't even demonstrate an awareness of what the argument was. Your original "argument" from analogy is fallacious, your further responses are even more problematic: 1) You didn't understand my concern about doubt or (or Kierkegaard), 2) you claim that all belief requires an absence of doubt (which is just simply not true), and 3) you refuse to address any of the other problems with the analogy.

My god man (no pun intended), I didn't argue against the existence of religious devotion or commitment...

Well perhaps a discussion of what constitutes "rational" is in order, I am under the impression that it requires giving reasoned justification (this is kind of why I asked for you to give your reasons - it appears however, that you understand it to be an act of vigorous foot-stomping).

Um, let me see if I get this straight. I ask you how do you know the bible is right about good and bad. You say because you believe the bible (which of course is an embarrassingly bad response and not at all an answer to the question) and that you fear eternal damnation for not following God's law (which I pointed out is an example of self-interest). I respond with a concern that this seems to lack integrity (as you define here as being honest and having strong moral principles and moral uprightness - which is exactly my point - mere self-interest seems to lack strong moral principles and moral uprightness) and is sacrilegious (which you define as oddly as "Believing in a religion and then violating those religious beliefs" - but this is not accurate - sacrilege merely means to treat something holy with disrespect, to profane it, to cheapen it:

Cambridge Dictionary: "the failure to treat something holy with the respect it should have"
Dictionary.com: "the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred."
Merriam-Webster: "gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing"

This is of course my exact intended use of the word. Are you done googling words now?

 

I understand that in the story of Genesis, Adam and Eve were not created for failure. The question you mentioned makes sense as well. God, being all-knowing, would know Satan would intervene, and be able to stop him due to His omnipotence. There would be no need to a allow a faulty world to create better people, as God, knowing what better people would exist as a result of Satan's intervention, could have simply created a perfect world where only they would exist. Free will in Christianity seems to be only of a benefit to God, who does not need to fear negative consequences. It would only add a chance for failure to humans. Which is what I have difficulty understanding, why would God give intelligent beings He created the chance of failure? It is only my opinion, but the Christian God appears to care far more about Himself, His position of authority, and His narrative for reality, than He does for the well being of His creations. Especially with the fact that many disobedient creations did not ask to be part of God's world to begin with.
I would also like to pose this scenario to you:

If you want to have a child, and God Himself told you that if born, your child, based on the choices he or she makes in life, will spend their afterlife in Hell, regardless of anything you or anyone tries to teach them, would you still conceive your child?

 

You have asked the same questions several times, I have answered them, you do not understand my answer. Maybe I don't understand your questions, but I doubt it since I spent some time reading your previous post under the assumption that I missed your point. Whatever the problem, we are talking past each other and there is no point in continuing.

 

All of these questions deal with God's motivation and the true nature of God, neither of which can be understood by humanity at this time. God seems all powerful to humans, but is He in the greater universe in which He lives? I don't know. God seems to have certain needs - why would He create Adam and Eve in the first place? But I don't know what those needs are.

What I can believe is that since God created the universe, Satan corrupted it, and God has implemented a plan to recover the world and humanity, then I assume there is a good reason - even if I do not know the reason.

I would not have the child. If you apply that situation to God, since humanity does exist in a sinful world, and there is a plan of salvation in operation, then the assumptions are wrong: maybe God is not omniscient, or all powerful so that He can simply snap His fingers and jump to the end of the story.

 

SOCRATES: "So we must investigate again from the beginning what piety is, as I shall not willingly give up before I learn this. Do not think me unworthy, but concentrate your attention and tell the truth...but now I know well that you believe you have clear knowledge of piety and impiety. So tell me, my good Euthyphro, and do not hide what you think it is."

EUTHYPHRO: "Some other time, Socrates, for I am in a hurry now, and it is time for me to go."

SOCRATES: "What a thing to do, my friend! By going you have cast me down from a great hope I had, that I would learn from you the nature of the pious and the impious...that I had acquired wisdom in divine matters from Euthyphro, and my ignorance would no longer cause me to be careless and inventive about such things, and that I would be better for the rest of my life."

- Plato. Euthyphro. (15d-16a)

 

Even stranger that God does not provide humans with the ability to understand His true nature and motivation. Or at the very least, have an active presence on Earth to make humans aware of His plans. Also, if the Christian God exists, I have often found myself wondering much the same. To a mortal sentient being, He is incomprehensibly powerful, but are there others of His same "species"? If they would save the souls of those in Hell and liberate us from our creator, one can only hope. That also seems correct that God would have some type of need if He created our reality. Although it does not appear that God has any intention of recovering humanity, only those select individuals who agree with Him, as many of His laws interfere with the happiness of a large portion of human beings. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt such a deity truly loves any of His creations. It seems rather cruel to provide beings with the freedom of choice, then allow them to be punished for disobeying or disagreeing with you, which they only did because of the freedom of choice you granted them. I feel free will serves no purpose if one has to face negative outcomes based on their thoughts and actions. The world Christianity presents has always seemed so bleak.

 

delete

 

Again, I have read the Bible and the NT supports slavery as well.

Ephesians 6:5-8King James Version (KJV)
5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.


Why is it that your God can say not to steal, covet, commit fornication/adultery , lie, but he can't command that you not forcibly own other humans?

Once again, you have provided another example of a mindless religious zombie that will demoralize him/herself to protect your mythical god.

 

It doesn't matter whether your god is omniscient, the fact that the majority of his "children" are tortured in hell for trillions upon trillions of years for not bowing to him makes him an evil monster. Squirm your way out of this one.

 

Christians believe God is active in the world, and that Satan is active as well.

Christianity is not a popularity contest, that was clear from the very beginning. The objective is not to make as many people as possible happy in terms of earthly desires.

Your statement also implies that Christians are unhappy because they are Christians, that is certainly not the case.

What are these laws that interfere with happiness?

 

You have a choice, it is clearly presented to you, the consequences are known to you. You make your choice, you receive the consequences. Its your decision, not God's. I'm not apologizing because you don't like the choice you have to make.

 

That does not at all show that the New Testament supports slavery.

First, you are out of context as usual. Read the entire section. Paul is stating that the Christian should live righteously no matter what condition he finds himself in.

And it goes both ways. Whether its parents and children, or slaves and masters, each has a responsibility to respect the other and treat them in a Christian manner. Later Paul states that Christians should not have other Christians as slaves. Pauls letter to Philemon directly addresses slavery.

You say you have read the Bible, I do not believe you. Your post proves you have not read the Bible.

 

Hopefully, someday you will realize how absurd your assertion is.

 

Holy cow, you are delusional. It is absurd for your god to give slavery as an example of honor and fear for himself.

Btw, by your pathetic standard, you could own me as a slave being that I'm atheist. And you claim I haven't read the Bible. You clearly have no idea what the book says.

Let's explore another Bible story. So, Lot was the only righteous man to be saved from Sodom, yet he first offered his daughters to be raped, then later got drunk and impregnated them both. So, where is the righteous story here?

 

Wrong again. The New Testament does not support slavery at all, it is not acceptable for a Christian to own a slave. In the 1st Century when Paul was writing, the world was slave owning, slavery was the natural order and was accepted in every society. Paul had no influence over non-Christians, he could not tell non-Christians to free their slaves. But he could tell Christians not to own slaves.

As to Lot, wrong again. After Sodom was destroyed, Lot and his 2 daughters believed they were the only remaining people on earth. Lot's daughters came up with the plan of getting pregnant by Lot, they got Lot drunk and then had sex with him. It was not Lot's idea or intention. Another case proving you have not read the bible.

 

No, it does. Paul is recognizing that the slave is property. It does not matter that the NT is trying to separate itself from the old God. I've clearly shown you where god sanctions Jews/humans to own other humans as property. I can provide OT scriptures on how you can treat them harshly. This is not debatable.

I know exactly how the story of Lot goes. It is ridiculous for you to claim they believed they were the only humans. He knows Abraham lives in another society. Also, there is no way a decent man would be tricked once, let alone twice, into impregnating his daughter.

Please, stop making yourself look so ignorant. These are folklore stories written by old Jewish societies. There is no end to the absurdities I can present that make the Bible god look like the mythical sham it is.

The problem here is not that I don't know the Bible, the problem is that you can't read past your indoctrination.

 

Wrong again. You are batting 1,000.

Paul does not recognize that a slave is property, he is giving advice regarding how a person should live given their circumstances. Paul cannot abolish slavery, he cannot command a revolt of the slaves either. The Bible not only outlines God's will but also provides practical guidance.

You should read it one day.

 

He is returning a slave to his master. It is that simple. That he request the master treat him nice is irrelevant. The slave should not be possessed "at all". Paul/God should demand his liberty. Yet again, the OT explains Gods position on this issue.

Btw, you continuing to assert I haven't read the Bible is showing your ignorance of it. I suggest you read it without your indoctrinated rose colored glasses.

 

Who is returning a slave to his master? Paul is not, in Ephesians he is giving general advice, in the passage just before the one you quote Paul gives similar advice to the child and the parent, in the passage just after the one you quote Paul is giving advice to the master. You should do more than simple google/cut/paste.

In his letter to Philemon, Paul instructs Philemon to treat Onesimus (the slave) as Philemon's brother and as Paul's son. Read it.