Religion: an obstacle for human progress?

[richym]

clh_hilary, I am interested by your claim that morals predate religion. If God created the world, and therefore some for of worship of God has always existed, then faith or religion predates morals, or are a part of God.

 

[lhardwick69]

religion in my opinion is a crutch for the weak minded--these people many years ago created these beliefs to give people in time of need a reason for hope a reason to live--and as time goes by these people use that religion to do terrible things--Christianity for starters--more people have been killed in the name of god--christianities god-- than most other religions combined--


then you get other religions people use in the name of their god and then use it as a reason to kill innocent people..

I cant stand religion--I don't need a god--Christianity god--telling me how to be a father or telling others to be a father-- when he lets his own son die on the cross--no matter what most dads will not let their son die if they can prevent it--you have a god that tells noah to build a ark put two of each life form on this ark prepare to sail as there will be a great flood for 40 days and forty nights --here comes the flood--only thing lives is noah and the creatures on his ark--while the flood once again kills everyone on earth wiping out all the evils god had created--


jesus was born of a virgin mary-- a virgin mother--how ridiculous--is that----and if we had this person to come back and start talking like he is the lord jesus Christ--he would be put in a padded room and shot full of thorozine

I just live life knowing I will be at a better place when I die as I wont be living in this crappy world that it has become

 

[tonka]

Human history happened. Religion happened.
You can bend that like a pretzel with alternate realities, but the fact remains. Human societies construct religions.
Some of these religions have profound truths for their members; some of these religions are political power wrapped up in moral certainty.

Modern people need to understand the difference. Respect the former; fight the latter. But don't treat them as the same.

 

[clh_hilary]

clh_hilary, I am interested by your claim that morals predate religion. If God created the world, and therefore some for of worship of God has always existed, then faith or religion predates morals, or are a part of God.

Well first of all, ever IF 'god' created the world, it does not have the be the Hebrew gods. In fact, the contradictions in the The Bible should already be enough to disprove them. So assuming there is a 'god', a supernatural being, or a 'first cause', whatever that may mean, then your scenario is a POSSIBLE scenario. Other scenarios with the same possibilities are: It is an impersonal god. It may have left after creating the world, it may not actually care about anything, it may have died, it may have been sleeping, it may have been preoccupied by other things, it may never have had consciousness. It may be a god of something else. For example, it could be equally possible to be the god of mosquitoes, and that god created humans only to feed on them.

Secondly, ever if 'god' predates morals, faith or religion does not. Simply because there is a god doesn't mean there is faith or religion. Matter fact, people with no faith or religious affiliation developed moral systems which are upheld better now (eg Chinese philosophy during the Zhou Dynasty) than people with faith and a religious affiliation (read The Bible). That is a simple fact. On the contrary, moral codes of religions had to be forced to change from time to time when they are outdated. Racial equality, gender equality, sexual orientation equality, anti-slavery, anti-child abuse, abortion, contraception, working on Sundays, eating pork, eating shellfish, shaving, not marrying your brother's wife because your brother's dead without a heir, etc. All of them were violations to the morals taught by The Bible.

Thirdly, why assume that there is a god? If you define 'god' as the Hebrew ones or the Greek ones, 100% of the evidence is not in favour of his/their existence. If you define 'god' as a personal god, basically the same, with slightly more probability of it existing. If you define 'god' as a potential impersonal supernatural power (may not even be a 'being'), then there is equal possibility that god does not exist. If there has to be a 'first cause' to 'start' the universe, then why doesn't the 'first cause' needs something to be started with? Why does the universe need to be created, but god(s) need(s) not to be created? Then of course, if you define 'god' as the universe or 'mother nature', then it definitely exists. This would actually a philosophical argument on whether morals predate these 'gods'. With mother nature for example, our morals are developed with empathy and principles of evolution, which 'nature' is a part of.

 

[clh_hilary]

religion in my opinion is a crutch for the weak minded--these people many years ago created these beliefs to give people in time of need a reason for hope a reason to live--and as time goes by these people use that religion to do terrible things--Christianity for starters--more people have been killed in the name of god--christianities god-- than most other religions combined--


then you get other religions people use in the name of their god and then use it as a reason to kill innocent people..

I cant stand religion--I don't need a god--Christianity god--telling me how to be a father or telling others to be a father-- when he lets his own son die on the cross--no matter what most dads will not let their son die if they can prevent it--you have a god that tells noah to build a ark put two of each life form on this ark prepare to sail as there will be a great flood for 40 days and forty nights --here comes the flood--only thing lives is noah and the creatures on his ark--while the flood once again kills everyone on earth wiping out all the evils god had created--


jesus was born of a virgin mary-- a virgin mother--how ridiculous--is that----and if we had this person to come back and start talking like he is the lord jesus Christ--he would be put in a padded room and shot full of thorozine

I just live life knowing I will be at a better place when I die as I wont be living in this crappy world that it has become

Just as a side note, 'born of a virgin' is actually a translation error. Originally it meant only a 'young lady', not necessarily a 'virgin'. There's also another notable error in The Gospel of John, with the 'word' actually not being 'god', but something closer to 'logic' (there isn't a specific English word for the Greek 'original' word).

---

I'd like to echo your view and state that actually a lot of people believe in god(s) because they feel they may be punished in their afterlives if they do not. That is absurd. If there is a god, would he be fooled by you so very easily this way? Also, what id you are wrong and betted on the wrong god?

Though the more important question for me is, if the Hebrew god of the Old Testament exists, why would you choose to support it anyhow? He is a cruel, unjust, jealous, and impotent god, among many other negative adjectives I can use to describe him. If I die and get sent to hell, the only thing I will do is to organise an army with Satan to fight my way to heaven to claim his throne, not to bow down to such an ego-centric morally corrupted stupid heartless dictator.

 

[clh_hilary]

Human history happened. Religion happened.
You can bend that like a pretzel with alternate realities, but the fact remains. Human societies construct religions.
Some of these religions have profound truths for their members; some of these religions are political power wrapped up in moral certainty.

Modern people need to understand the difference. Respect the former; fight the latter. But don't treat them as the same.

But the thing is, even though there is a difference, it does not mean they are different 'religions'/'churches' or different gods. They could be the exist same gods from the exact same church, just the people following them perceiving differently. On the one hand, the 'good people' would be 'donating' their voice to the religion this way by declaring to be followers of the faith. Then the 'bad people' can abuse the power all they want. Like how The Roman Catholic Church remains relevant. It is on the news all the time with its backward practices and such, but I for one think most catholics would actually be more progressive than that. The church does not actually represent its followers, yet it's still prominent and powerful in the media, and politicians still feel the need to 'respect' those views like gender and sexual orientation inequalities.

I think even the most militant atheists would not be advocating banning all religions. For one, it simply wouldn't work; for the other, that simply is not liberal. The only thing is that no matter what faith you are following, that's YOUR faith which you should not impose on anybody else. Your church should not be given a voice to say anything politically or on human rights.

 

[richym]

Well first of all, ever IF 'god' created the world, it does not have the be the Hebrew gods. In fact, the contradictions in the The Bible should already be enough to disprove them. So assuming there is a 'god', a supernatural being, or a 'first cause', whatever that may mean, then your scenario is a POSSIBLE scenario. Other scenarios with the same possibilities are: It is an impersonal god. It may have left after creating the world, it may not actually care about anything, it may have died, it may have been sleeping, it may have been preoccupied by other things, it may never have had consciousness. It may be a god of something else. For example, it could be equally possible to be the god of mosquitoes, and that god created humans only to feed on them.

Secondly, ever if 'god' predates morals, faith or religion does not. Simply because there is a god doesn't mean there is faith or religion. Matter fact, people with no faith or religious affiliation developed moral systems which are upheld better now (eg Chinese philosophy during the Zhou Dynasty) than people with faith and a religious affiliation (read The Bible). That is a simple fact. On the contrary, moral codes of religions had to be forced to change from time to time when they are outdated. Racial equality, gender equality, sexual orientation equality, anti-slavery, anti-child abuse, abortion, contraception, working on Sundays, eating pork, eating shellfish, shaving, not marrying your brother's wife because your brother's dead without a heir, etc. All of them were violations to the morals taught by The Bible.

Thirdly, why assume that there is a god? If you define 'god' as the Hebrew ones or the Greek ones, 100% of the evidence is not in favour of his/their existence. If you define 'god' as a personal god, basically the same, with slightly more probability of it existing. If you define 'god' as a potential impersonal supernatural power (may not even be a 'being'), then there is equal possibility that god does not exist. If there has to be a 'first cause' to 'start' the universe, then why doesn't the 'first cause' needs something to be started with? Why does the universe need to be created, but god(s) need(s) not to be created? Then of course, if you define 'god' as the universe or 'mother nature', then it definitely exists. This would actually a philosophical argument on whether morals predate these 'gods'. With mother nature for example, our morals are developed with empathy and principles of evolution, which 'nature' is a part of.

Well firstly, I don't think that the inconsitencies in the Bible disprove God. They show us that the Bible was ultimately written by humans. While God inspire them to write, they still wrote within their own context and culture. As that culture changed over the time of the Bible writting, and as their knowledge of God expanded, they way they describe God changes.
I would suggest that the ways that I percieve God active in the world suggests to me that he hasn't just left us to get on with things. Of course you would probably suggest these events are just coincidences, so that just comes down to how we view the things that happen, and we will always just disagree on that one.
In your second point, I would disagree that all of those points mentioned are neccessarily true of the Bible. Yes the church has taught all those things are right or wrong at times, but that doesn't mean that is what the Bible really taught. Also we need to recognise a number of those come under the purity law in Leviticus, which Jesus does away with as no longer relevant. It was for a time and a place. Jesus is about gender equality and racial equality. He says nothing about sexual equality, though I would argue the very few passages in the Bible that we translate as dealing with homosexuality are actually talking about either abusive relationships or homosexual shrine prostitutes. The Bible accepts slavery as part of the current culture, it is against child abuse (ok you will probably point to the Abraham and Isaac story, that's just a wierd one). Doesn't really say anything about abortion, says nothing about contraception. I think gives us the wise advice that we need a day off each week. The others come under the purity code. Times change, and so the rules needed change. The fact is I don't believe that follow God is actually about following a long list of rules.
On the third point, I wouldn't try to argue that there has to be a first cause, I agree with a few scholar I heard that suggest that is just silly trying to go back and back to prove God by fitting him in as the "God of the gaps" the first cause some where.
They are just my thoughts on ur points, feel free to disagree.

 

[clh_hilary]

Well firstly, I don't think that the inconsitencies in the Bible disprove God.

It does not disprove god but it disproves the Hebrew gods if The Bible is to be seen as the words of the Hebrew deity.

They show us that the Bible was ultimately written by humans. While God inspire them to write, they still wrote within their own context and culture.

So is the Hebrew deity not omniscience and omnipotent? He cannot have done a better job than that?

How about Jesus Christ saying his second coming will not be a generation passed?

As that culture changed over the time of the Bible writting, and as their knowledge of God expanded, they way they describe God changes.

So again, is god either not timeless or omniscience, or omnipotent?

I would suggest that the ways that I percieve God active in the world suggests to me that he hasn't just left us to get on with things. Of course you would probably suggest these events are just coincidences, so that just comes down to how we view the things that happen, and we will always just disagree on that one.

No, the burden of proof lies on the party who claims something out of nothing. Anything you could mention could have been done by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose gospel does not have contradictions and offers a way more accurate world view.

In your second point, I would disagree that all of those points mentioned are neccessarily true of the Bible. Yes the church has taught all those things are right or wrong at times, but that doesn't mean that is what the Bible really taught.

Then why includes them in The Bible? Is it no longer god's words entirely

Also we need to recognise a number of those come under the purity law in Leviticus, which Jesus does away with as no longer relevant. It was for a time and a place. Jesus is about gender equality and racial equality. He says nothing about sexual equality, though I would argue the very few passages in the Bible that we translate as dealing with homosexuality are actually talking about either abusive relationships or homosexual shrine prostitutes. The Bible accepts slavery as part of the current culture, it is against child abuse (ok you will probably point to the Abraham and Isaac story, that's just a wierd one). Doesn't really say anything about abortion, says nothing about contraception. I think gives us the wise advice that we need a day off each week. The others come under the purity code. Times change, and so the rules needed change.

Why was there a time and a place for people to kill gays, shut up women, or kill people who work on Sundays?

Again, is your god not all-knowing and all-powerful?

The fact is I don't believe that follow God is actually about following a long list of rules.

You are defining god in your own terms, which is fine as that's what most everybody does (and usually leads to better outcomes). But, you are at most a theist/deist, not a christian.

On the other hand, what makes you choose not to follow islam or judaism when they are the same religion as christianity? Who's right and who's wrong? Who's going to hell and who isn't?

On the note on going to hell. All in all, you can be an awful person who did all sorts of bad things, but in the end if you believe in the Hebrew gods and repent you go to heaven; if you are a wonderful person who touches millions of lives, humans and animals, but you are not a believe of this specific Hebrew deity, you are going to hell. How is that a religion anyone should support? How is heaven better than hell anyway?

Two other points to show that christianity is logically improbable: Why would Satan punish bad people in hell? Isn't bad people doing bad things the whole point of Satan's plan? So if in the end it becomes a punishment, wouldn't Satan be actually someone who helps god and is in effect a good 'person'? If you love someone and that someone is going to hell even though you're going to heaven. Knowing that the person you love is burning in hell through eternity, do you think heaven is really heaven to you? Heaven couldn't logically exist.

On the third point, I wouldn't try to argue that there has to be a first cause, I agree with a few scholar I heard that suggest that is just silly trying to go back and back to prove God by fitting him in as the "God of the gaps" the first cause some where.
They are just my thoughts on ur points, feel free to disagree.

Fitting a god as the first cause is the only remaining way to suggest its existence probable. Other forms of gods cannot possibly exist.

---

The inconsistencies and obviously incorrect world views are not the only things to disprove the biblical god. It could also logically have not happened. If someone is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, and good, why the planned sufferings? Why building the tree of knowledge knowing that humans will eat it, then get 'angry' (omniscience, huh?) at them? How can humans know what's not to do when they were not given the ability to know what's not to do? What's wrong with having knowledge or righteousness anyway?

So if the creation myth is just 'symbolic', then why is there original sin? Why would there be a need for Jesus to die? Why would Jesus dying do anything? Is god so impotent that he cannot forgive people without killing himself? The entire plan makes 0 sense. Then there are the historical facts showing that at the time of Jesus, a lot of things mentioned didn't happen. The census never happened, for example. So is the entire Jesus thing supposed to be symbolic too?

How can a god be considered 'good' when he did something like killing millions for trivial reasons, or 'harden his heart' when the Egyptian King may release the Jewish people? It just seemed like he pulled all the stops just to set people up for failure so he could get 'angry' and kill people.

If you trace back to the history of the Hebrew gods, you will find out that it is a tribal religion with actually two big gods in the time of the Old Testament's, with this one being merely the war god. If you trace christianity back to the time of post-Jesus, you will find out that it stole a lot of ideas from other religions, and Plato's philosophy to polish its story and still-disappointing weak and incredible theology.

There are thousands of things proving that the Hebrew gods could not have possibly existed.

 

[kendo]

So God Made A Gay Man

 

[clh_hilary]

I think videos like this if meant to be satire or comedy that's fine, but if someone's taking it so very seriously that's bad. That's basically saying 'god is giving you a test by making you gay because you are a special soul'. It could help some people to rationalise things, but could also be perceived as an attack to people who really just aren't strong enough to fence off the bigoted.

Also doesn't help whenever one uses the word 'test' as more than a few gay people feel being gay is a 'test', some of them feel they have failed god, some of them feel they cannot fail god. The biggest homophobes emerged this way.

 

[richym]

It does not disprove god but it disproves the Hebrew gods if The Bible is to be seen as the words of the Hebrew deity.



So is the Hebrew deity not omniscience and omnipotent? He cannot have done a better job than that?

How about Jesus Christ saying his second coming will not be a generation passed?



So again, is god either not timeless or omniscience, or omnipotent?



No, the burden of proof lies on the party who claims something out of nothing. Anything you could mention could have been done by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose gospel does not have contradictions and offers a way more accurate world view.



Then why includes them in The Bible? Is it no longer god's words entirely



Why was there a time and a place for people to kill gays, shut up women, or kill people who work on Sundays?

Again, is your god not all-knowing and all-powerful?



You are defining god in your own terms, which is fine as that's what most everybody does (and usually leads to better outcomes). But, you are at most a theist/deist, not a christian.

On the other hand, what makes you choose not to follow islam or judaism when they are the same religion as christianity? Who's right and who's wrong? Who's going to hell and who isn't?

On the note on going to hell. All in all, you can be an awful person who did all sorts of bad things, but in the end if you believe in the Hebrew gods and repent you go to heaven; if you are a wonderful person who touches millions of lives, humans and animals, but you are not a believe of this specific Hebrew deity, you are going to hell. How is that a religion anyone should support? How is heaven better than hell anyway?

Two other points to show that christianity is logically improbable: Why would Satan punish bad people in hell? Isn't bad people doing bad things the whole point of Satan's plan? So if in the end it becomes a punishment, wouldn't Satan be actually someone who helps god and is in effect a good 'person'? If you love someone and that someone is going to hell even though you're going to heaven. Knowing that the person you love is burning in hell through eternity, do you think heaven is really heaven to you? Heaven couldn't logically exist.



Fitting a god as the first cause is the only remaining way to suggest its existence probable. Other forms of gods cannot possibly exist.

---

The inconsistencies and obviously incorrect world views are not the only things to disprove the biblical god. It could also logically have not happened. If someone is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, and good, why the planned sufferings? Why building the tree of knowledge knowing that humans will eat it, then get 'angry' (omniscience, huh?) at them? How can humans know what's not to do when they were not given the ability to know what's not to do? What's wrong with having knowledge or righteousness anyway?

So if the creation myth is just 'symbolic', then why is there original sin? Why would there be a need for Jesus to die? Why would Jesus dying do anything? Is god so impotent that he cannot forgive people without killing himself? The entire plan makes 0 sense. Then there are the historical facts showing that at the time of Jesus, a lot of things mentioned didn't happen. The census never happened, for example. So is the entire Jesus thing supposed to be symbolic too?

How can a god be considered 'good' when he did something like killing millions for trivial reasons, or 'harden his heart' when the Egyptian King may release the Jewish people? It just seemed like he pulled all the stops just to set people up for failure so he could get 'angry' and kill people.

If you trace back to the history of the Hebrew gods, you will find out that it is a tribal religion with actually two big gods in the time of the Old Testament's, with this one being merely the war god. If you trace christianity back to the time of post-Jesus, you will find out that it stole a lot of ideas from other religions, and Plato's philosophy to polish its story and still-disappointing weak and incredible theology.

There are thousands of things proving that the Hebrew gods could not have possibly existed.

Wow lots to reply to here. I guess the first comment I would make is that the Bible is "The word of God" not "The words of God." It gives us the story of God, of his interactions with humanity. It is not dictated by God. Sure some of the laws that Moses wrote down were dictated, but otherwise it is written by humans with their own influence. He could have probably written it all by himself, sure, but would we necessarily have understood it, or believed it? We accept things from humans probably more than we accept them from a deity, well I think that, I'm probably wrong. The Bible follows the history of God's interaction with his people, like any historical account, things appear in there that are no longer applicable. That's just the nature of history and development.

Jesus clearly says that he does not know when his second coming is, and he gets it wrong quite cearly. Yeah it is a pain that he got it wrong, but helps to show that the gospels are accurate accounts of the things which Jesus said. You don't make up things that are wrong to try and convince people.

It is sad that people have used the Bible to hurt others, as a Christian I can only say sorry for the way the church has acted, and done the wrong thing. Ultimately God gave us free will, which is why the whole problem of evil question. Sure God could have made a bunch of robots that just went around saying "I love you, I love you," but he wanted to make beings that could choose to love him. Yes that left things open for abuse.

I don't think the simplistic, ray the prayer and you are in heaven, don't pray and you are out" is accurate. Jesus makes it clear that some people who think they are in will find out the opposite. I am not God, so I am not going to have a guess at how he mught judge us. Also our image of hell as the devil punnishing us is probably rubbish. The Bible really tells us almost nothing about hell.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of two tribal God's in the Old Testament times, I haven't heard that from any reasonable source.

I know I've left some questions unanswered, I guess if I try to do them all these comments will get huge.

Thanks for your thoughts, you ask some great questions.

 

[clh_hilary]

Sure some of the laws that Moses wrote down were dictated, but otherwise it is written by humans with their own influence.

So in god's perfectly moral system, he decided indeed that the supreme belief in him (the first two) is the most importantly moral thing that could have happen? He didn't think of 'love' during the time of the Old Testament?

He could have probably written it all by himself, sure, but would we necessarily have understood it, or believed it?

So he either is unable to write things that humans could understand, or believe? This god seems pretty useless tbh.

The Bible follows the history of God's interaction with his people, like any historical account, things appear in there that are no longer applicable.

Because this god is really ONLY for those people. It is a middle-east tribe's war god.

'Things appear in there no longer applicable'? So god is unable to change things for the better? To actually influence or inspire progress? Socially or scientifically?

That's just the nature of history and development.

The christian god does develop through history, which is NOT something that should happen had this god been really all-powerful and all-knowing.

Jesus clearly says that he does not know when his second coming is, and he gets it wrong quite cearly.

Which means he either is not god, or that this god is not all-knowing.

Yeah it is a pain that he got it wrong, but helps to show that the gospels are accurate accounts of the things which Jesus said.

No it doesn't. All it does is prove that Jesus either is not god, or that this god is not all-knowing nor all-powerful. Or that this god is dead.

You don't make up things that are wrong to try and convince people.

That is because those books were written only to convince people of that time. The people did not foresee that the cult could actually last.

Also, they could not possibly have been 'accurate' accounts because the gospels were written several hundred years after Jesus had supposedly died. The gospels themselves also have an awful lot of contradictions about how events progressed, and what happened what did not happen.

Ultimately God gave us free will, which is why the whole problem of evil question. Sure God could have made a bunch of robots that just went around saying "I love you, I love you," but he wanted to make beings that could choose to love him. Yes that left things open for abuse.

1. Does god know evil? Does he understands evil? If he does, he is not all good. If he does not, he is not all-knowing and all-powerful.
2. If we are created in his own image (which would of course defy evolution, something which has more than sufficient evidence to support - another reason to disprove the biblical gods), it means there is evil in god as well. So is he not all good after all?
3. You're suggesting that anyone who loves this god are not evil, while anyone who doesn't are.

I don't think the simplistic, ray the prayer and you are in heaven, don't pray and you are out" is accurate. Jesus makes it clear that some people who think they are in will find out the opposite.

If you believe, you still may not go to heaven; but if you do not, and you have heard the gospel, you are not going to heaven regardless of how good you are.

Also our image of hell as the devil punnishing us is probably rubbish. The Bible really tells us almost nothing about hell.

Logically Satan would reward people who go to hell, and since everything pleasure basically are sins, we can only pleasure ourselves in hell. Why go to heaven?

I'm not sure where you get the idea of two tribal God's in the Old Testament times, I haven't heard that from any reasonable source.

I think you understand very little about the history of your religion.

Yahweh is nothing more than a Greek god, who was worshipped only to win wars so the people in return will not worship other gods.

 

[richym]

So in god's perfectly moral system, he decided indeed that the supreme belief in him (the first two) is the most importantly moral thing that could have happen? He didn't think of 'love' during the time of the Old Testament?

One of the key things you see in the Old Testament law is love. To care for others, to look after the poor and the needy. Like most legal systems though over time it gets corrupted by the rich and wealthy. Jesus says that loving God and others sums up the whole of the Old Testament law, not that it replaces it.

So he either is unable to write things that humans could understand, or believe? This god seems pretty useless tbh.

Sorry that was not what I was trying to say. I was suggesting that people struggle to connect with a God, they connect better with humans. I was thinking the other day about the giving of the law. When the people get to Mount Siani God rocks up with thunder and stuff, and the people all say to Moses, "You can go talk to him, we'll stay down here." They want God to speak to them through Moses. I wonder if the law then reflects the people's need at that time to have an intermediary, with the hope things would change in time. Of course they didn't really, but God eventually changed things with Jesus.

Because this god is really ONLY for those people. It is a middle-east tribe's war god.

God is not meant to be only for the Jews, right from the call of Abraham he is to be a blessing to the nations. Much of the words of the prophets is pointing out that the Israelites have got it wrong by thinking God is only for them.

'Things appear in there no longer applicable'? So god is unable to change things for the better? To actually influence or inspire progress? Socially or scientifically?

I believe that God can and does influence things for the better. Many great thinkers or artisans of the past, would credit God as their inspiration. Just listen to a grammy award ceremony and how many want to thank God, I'm not sure God would want them all though (That comment was just meant to make you chuckle, please don't think I'm making a serious statement about God's feelings for them.)

The christian god does develop through history, which is NOT something that should happen had this god been really all-powerful and all-knowing.

I don't think that the Christian God develops through history, I think that our understanding of God develops through history. And so as time goes on we learn more and more about this God who is so much greater than us. On the other hand as history goes on culture changes, and so the ways that God interacts with those culture changes. It is not God changing, but the way he works so that it fits within culture.

Which means he either is not god, or that this god is not all-knowing. No it doesn't. All it does is prove that Jesus either is not god, or that this god is not all-knowing nor all-powerful. Or that this god is dead.

This is where we get to the struggles of Jesus being fully God and fully man. It is clear that all of the knowledge of God could not fit within a human brain, so in some way Jesus lets go of some of the knowledge of God. This is where you get to complex theological beliefs.

That is because those books were written only to convince people of that time. The people did not foresee that the cult could actually last.

Those books were written as records, yes with the idea of helping people to understand who Jesus was. But they were careful to record what happened. This is why the four different witnesses line up.

Also, they could not possibly have been 'accurate' accounts because the gospels were written several hundred years after Jesus had supposedly died. The gospels themselves also have an awful lot of contradictions about how events progressed, and what happened what did not happen.

The Gospels that are included in the Bible are all written by 90AD at the latest. I would argue that they, like everything else in the New Testament are written before 70AD, but I would be in a minority there. We have a fragment of John's gospel, the one thought to be written last, dating from 120AD. This is found in Egypt, so John's gospel needed to have been written long enough before to be copied and circulated down to there. What are the contradictions. They have different chronologies, because in general they were not worried about chronological order. And ancient doent tells us that Mark did not write his gospel in order of events, but based around themes. It would seem the others generally did the same.

1. Does god know evil? Does he understands evil? If he does, he is not all good. If he does not, he is not all-knowing and all-powerful.
2. If we are created in his own image (which would of course defy evolution, something which has more than sufficient evidence to support - another reason to disprove the biblical gods), it means there is evil in god as well. So is he not all good after all?
3. You're suggesting that anyone who loves this god are not evil, while anyone who doesn't are.

1. Yes God knows evil. You can know evil without doing evil.
2. To create something in your image does not mean it is exactly like you. I could sculpt a statue in my image, no one is going to suddenly think it is me, and it is not going to move around and be me.
3. No I would not suggest that. Some who claim to love God do absolutely terrible things. Some who claim to not love God do amazing things. That's why I don't think the standard of judgement that God will use is simply, did you say you love me, good you are in.

If you believe, you still may not go to heaven; but if you do not, and you have heard the gospel, you are not going to heaven regardless of how good you are.

I would disagree with that personally.

Logically Satan would reward people who go to hell, and since everything pleasure basically are sins, we can only pleasure ourselves in hell. Why go to heaven?

As I said before, we really know very little about what hell is. It is not likely to be Satan punishing people, that is more a medevil idea.

I think you understand very little about the history of your religion.

I actually understand and have studied a great deal of the history of my religion. I have done Old Testament and New Testaement studies at both University and Theological College. Early church history at University, church history, Reformation church history and Australian church history at theological college.

Yahweh is nothing more than a Greek god, who was worshipped only to win wars so the people in return will not worship other gods.

Hmmm, how do you get Yahweh as a Greek God? That is a perculiar statement. I think that saddly too much Greek thinking has got mixed up into Christianity, so that we have a dualistic view of the world. That is that spirit is good flesh is bad. I think we need to work to regain some of the Jewsih thinking that all is spiritual and good.

Again you have made some good points that are important to think through. As I am sure you would say, we should always examine what we believe and make sure it is true.

 

[clh_hilary]

One of the key things you see in the Old Testament law is love.

Oh dear. Did you actually read The Bible?

Sorry that was not what I was trying to say. I was suggesting that people struggle to connect with a God, they connect better with humans. I was thinking the other day about the giving of the law. When the people get to Mount Siani God rocks up with thunder and stuff, and the people all say to Moses, "You can go talk to him, we'll stay down here." They want God to speak to them through Moses. I wonder if the law then reflects the people's need at that time to have an intermediary, with the hope things would change in time. Of course they didn't really, but God eventually changed things with Jesus.

...So the Hebrew god is enable to connect to his people directly. End of. He is not all-powerful.

God is not meant to be only for the Jews, right from the call of Abraham he is to be a blessing to the nations. Much of the words of the prophets is pointing out that the Israelites have got it wrong by thinking God is only for them.

Like who?

Many great thinkers or artisans of the past, would credit God as their inspiration.

Many people would credit Harry Potter, or the guy from Catch-22 their inspirations. Does it make them exist?

Just listen to a grammy award ceremony and how many want to thank God

You do realise this means absolutely nothing?

I don't think that the Christian God develops through history, I think that our understanding of God develops through history. And so as time goes on we learn more and more about this God who is so much greater than us. On the other hand as history goes on culture changes, and so the ways that God interacts with those culture changes. It is not God changing, but the way he works so that it fits within culture.

The changes of god do not lie only with the interactions, but with his rules and views.

This is where we get to the struggles of Jesus being fully God and fully man. It is clear that all of the knowledge of God could not fit within a human brain, so in some way Jesus lets go of some of the knowledge of God. This is where you get to complex theological beliefs.

So you are again exposing another thing the Hebrew god clearly couldn't do - to fit all knowledge of god within a human brain.

Those books were written as records, yes with the idea of helping people to understand who Jesus was. But they were careful to record what happened. This is why the four different witnesses line up.

They fact that they are written in Greek pretty much ruled out the supposed identities of the authors...

What are the contradictions. They have different chronologies, because in general they were not worried about chronological order. And ancient doent tells us that Mark did not write his gospel in order of events, but based around themes. It would seem the others generally did the same.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
It's not about chronological order. One verse said one thing, the other claimed the exact opposite. Some said the people going to the tomb knew that Jesus wasn't there, some said they didn't. Where the angels were, whether the tomb was already opened, etc.

1. Yes God knows evil. You can know evil without doing evil.

If god created everything, then he had created evil. If you sense evil and do not stop it, you ARE evil.

3. No I would not suggest that. Some who claim to love God do absolutely terrible things. Some who claim to not love God do amazing things. That's why I don't think the standard of judgement that God will use is simply, did you say you love me, good you are in.

Which is why the religion does not work, because this is all that it's basically based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin
Read the only unforgiable sins there are.

I actually understand and have studied a great deal of the history of my religion. I have done Old Testament and New Testaement studies at both University and Theological College. Early church history at University, church history, Reformation church history and Australian church history at theological college.

Theological college is unlikely to tell you the arguments from the other side, just like I wouldn't flash my master's degree in religions from a seemingly atheist university and pretended that it is entirely valid.

Never the less, I studied some history of christianity in The University of Cambridge. And like you, I have been 'educated' by the church, the church's schools, and Sunday School.

Hmmm, how do you get Yahweh as a Greek God? That is a perculiar statement.

I did not say he is a Greek god. He is not. I said he is nothing different from the role of a Greek god. Gods of his time.

I think that saddly too much Greek thinking has got mixed up into Christianity, so that we have a dualistic view of the world.

That is actually the only reason why christianity survived. They couldn't have been believable on any level even two thousand years ago. The theology was incredibly weak.

As I am sure you would say, we should always examine what we believe and make sure it is true.

Then have you examined if god exists?

 

[richym]

Oh dear. Did you actually read The Bible?

Yes I have, a number of times. It is key within the Law that people are to look after the poor and the needy. The problem is that we read the law through our perspective. So we read things like "An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth" and go yipee, I can get revenge. Instead it was meant to be read, don't hurt someone's eye, otherwise they will be able to do the same back. It is meant to be preventative, not retributive. Look at the idea of Jubilee, that all goods will be returned to people, and people brought back to their status. Yes some of it is harsh, there is no doubt about that.

...So the Hebrew god is enable to connect to his people directly. End of. He is not all-powerful

.
He is able to connect with people directly, people just choose not to. It wasn't that God couldn't talk to the people at Mount Siaini, it is that they chose not to go talk to him. That is their choice, not God's.

Like who?

Like all nations, the focus is often through the Old Testament that all should be blessed and included in. It is just the Jews over time decided that where the law said look after the foreigner, they would only interpret that as Jews from other areas.

Many people would credit Harry Potter, or the guy from Catch-22 their inspirations. Does it make them exist?

Your previous question was not does he exist, but can he inspire progress. The fact that people do good things in God's name, that they say he inspires them, well then he can inspire progress, whether he is real or not. And yes I know that many people have done terrible things in the name of God, I wish we could disown them, but we can't.

You do realise this means absolutely nothing?

Yes I do, that's why I made the smart arse comment about it.

The changes of god do not lie only with the interactions, but with his rules and views.

Hmmm I guess that the question comes down to have the rules changed, or the way that we interpret them? But ultimately the rules needed in a tribal warring area, are different to the rules needed under the pax romana, which are different to the rules we might need today.

So you are again exposing another thing the Hebrew god clearly couldn't do - to fit all knowledge of god within a human brain.

I'm sure God probably could fit his thoughts within a human brain, I'm not sure. But Paul in Philippians talks about how Jesus gave up some of his divinity in order to become fully human. Not that he was not fully God at the same time, but there were limits on his knowledge. He relied on God's spirit to help him do some of the amazing things, rather than just using his own power.

They fact that they are written in Greek pretty much ruled out the supposed identities of the authors...

Why does the use of Greek rule out the supposed authors. Greek would have been the major trading language, so it is likely that most would have had an understanding of Greek. Luke is a Greek. We know that Paul used amanuensis to write at least some of his letters, so the others could have. But the likelihood is that they would have known Greek to survive in the world of that time. Greek influence had been over that area for quite a while by then.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
It's not about chronological order. One verse said one thing, the other claimed the exact opposite. Some said the people going to the tomb knew that Jesus wasn't there, some said they didn't. Where the angels were, whether the tomb was already opened, etc.

There is no doubt that there are differences between how the gospels record stories. That is to be expected when you have four different accounts. If they were all exactly the same, then we would know they were copying, but they show us that they are independent (on the whole). Two different people seeing the same event will describe it slightly differently.

If god created everything, then he had created evil. If you sense evil and do not stop it, you ARE evil.

I think this is one of the difficult philosophical/theological questions. It would be great to say that God would stop all evil. But if he has equipped us with free will, isn't it then evil to stop us being able to do what we like. It's really not an easy to say yes he has to let us do evil, but if we want free will, then it comes with the possibility of evil.

Which is why the religion does not work, because this is all that it's basically based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin
Read the only unforgiable sins there are.

Because religion is based on humans doing it, which is why religion sucks. Religion just ends up in immovable institutions, as I suggested in the first post I did on this thread. It is just very difficult to move faith away from religion.

Theological college is unlikely to tell you the arguments from the other side, just like I wouldn't flash my master's degree in religions from a seemingly atheist university and pretended that it is entirely valid.

Thankfully I went to a college that was willing to look at all sides of the coin. But more importantly I joined it with the study at University, which looked at it from an historical point of view. I hope I can say I have looked at the various sides, but I'm sure there might be things I have missed.

Never the less, I studied some history of christianity in The University of Cambridge. And like you, I have been 'educated' by the church, the church's schools, and Sunday School.

Cool, that must have been interesting. Not sure about the church schools, you mean like high school and that. I always find them a bit constrictive and over bearing.

I did not say he is a Greek god. He is not. I said he is nothing different from the role of a Greek god. Gods of his time.

Sorry when you said "Yahweh is nothing more than a Greek god" I thought that was what you meant. Sorry if I misread it.

That is actually the only reason why christianity survived. They couldn't have been believable on any level even two thousand years ago. The theology was incredibly weak.

Well Christianity initially hides in the wings of Juahism, and then branches out into the Greek thinking. To some degree Greek thought has been helpful, in other areas it has been detrimental I would say.

Then have you examined if god exists?

Oh yeah, I have had those times of wondering if this is all crap. I had nights where I would lie in bed and say life is shit, and if God existed things would be better. And in those times I felt God reminding me of his love. I know you will probably just say that was in my mind, but that is the experience I had.

Thanks again for your thoughts, it was interesting to hear some of your history.

 

[clh_hilary]

Yes I have, a number of times. It is key within the Law that people are to look after the poor and the needy.

I cannot post them here for it would make this a little too long. But read these 613 biblical laws and tell me how exactly are all of them asking people to look after the poor and the needy.
http://www.hisglory.us/DOCUMENTS/613_biblical_laws.htm

He is able to connect with people directly, people just choose not to. It wasn't that God couldn't talk to the people at Mount Siaini, it is that they chose not to go talk to him. That is their choice, not God's.

It wasn't their choice. God did not give them the choice. Also, contrary to what you believe, if anything, it is the opposite that happened. God talking to people in bushes = believed and followed; god talking to people as a human (ie Jesus) = they killed him.

Like all nations, the focus is often through the Old Testament that all should be blessed and included in. It is just the Jews over time decided that where the law said look after the foreigner, they would only interpret that as Jews from other areas.

Because the Hebrew god originated from the Jews. It started there, and limited only within the Jewish community.

Your previous question was not does he exist, but can he inspire progress. The fact that people do good things in God's name, that they say he inspires them, well then he can inspire progress, whether he is real or not. And yes I know that many people have done terrible things in the name of God, I wish we could disown them, but we can't.

Well, then that's FAITH, not RELIGION, as the thread asked. Faith could inspire progress, but religions suppress any other possibility.

Hmmm I guess that the question comes down to have the rules changed, or the way that we interpret them?

So again, how could the rules on slavery, women, rebellious children, or working on Sundays be interpreted any other way?

If you're talking about rules like circision then I'd agree. It was needed in that region in that era. But that would only further show that this god is the god of the Hebrew people in that given time, not a timeless universal one.

I'm sure God probably could fit his thoughts within a human brain, I'm not sure. But Paul in Philippians talks about how Jesus gave up some of his divinity in order to become fully human. Not that he was not fully God at the same time, but there were limits on his knowledge. He relied on God's spirit to help him do some of the amazing things, rather than just using his own power.

...So he is not all powerful.

There is no doubt that there are differences between how the gospels record stories. That is to be expected when you have four different accounts. If they were all exactly the same, then we would know they were copying, but they show us that they are independent (on the whole). Two different people seeing the same event will describe it slightly differently.

The contradictions are exactly like how they would be if these 'witnesses' wrote the books just by hearing the rumours around them.
And if the 'witnesses' cannot even remember something as simple as whether the tomb was opened already, or if people already knew Jesus left the tomb when they went for him, it could be that everything could be mistakes. How do you actually trust any of the bits, especially the less important ones? With such inconsistency, why would they not be suspected to be largely made-up stories?

I think this is one of the difficult philosophical/theological questions. It would be great to say that God would stop all evil. But if he has equipped us with free will, isn't it then evil to stop us being able to do what we like.

To stop evil IS the necessary quality of a moral being. This is one of the reason why the theology cannot possibly be possible. Because it is utterly illogical. You cannot really be all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere at the same time, AND yet still being all good.

It's really not an easy to say yes he has to let us do evil, but if we want free will, then it comes with the possibility of evil.

Also, this is not necessarily true. He could have created humans to only be good people.

Free will in itself is yet another thing to make the theology impossible. If everything is planned by god, how is free will possible? On the other hand, do we actually have 'free' will if we would get severely punished for not acting in god's will?

Not sure about the church schools, you mean like high school and that. I always find them a bit constrictive and over bearing.

Yes. A catholic kindergarten, catholic primary schools (I went to two different ones), and a catholic secondary school. Was the vice-chairperson to the Catholic Society and awarded best performance in ethics and religious studies in secondary. I also taught in two christian primary schools, and one another christian secondary school. Not only did I myself go to Sunday School, my mother is a Sunday School teacher, whilst my brother remains an altar boy.

 

[reasek1]

Just chirping in here with my quick two cents, in reply to the OP.

I think religion as a whole has done many awful things but also many great things. Wars are fought over religion, but at the same time religions do some amazing charity work -a lot of it stemming from Christianity -at least that's my impression. Some people kill in the name of religion, but then again some help the needy, face danger every day to bring food to the very poor, build schools and hospitals, and basically bring a lot of joy to a lot of people.
When it comes to war I would also say that religion can be a big factor, and has been, especially in centuries gone by... but nowadays it seems like oil is the true driving force behind conflicts...

Religion can be extreme in it's views, for example the idea that if you commit mortal sins you can go to hell for all eternity. I don't believe that for one second, but if someone else believes it and it stops them from killing me, or stealing my wallet... then I won't complain too much.:rofl:

So, would the world be better off if all religion suddenly disappeared from the world? I wouldn't be so sure. The oil companies, the greedy super-rich, the muggers and the murderers, would all no doubt still be with us.

I guess all we can do, in a nutshell, is condemn the bad sides but praise, or at least accept the value of the good sides of religion. Taking a balanced view on any subject is usually a form of progress in itself.

 

[clh_hilary]

Just chirping in here with my quick two cents, in reply to the OP.

I think religion as a whole has done many awful things but also many great things. Wars are fought over religion, but at the same time religions do some amazing charity work -a lot of it stemming from Christianity -at least that's my impression. Some people kill in the name of religion, but then again some help the needy, face danger every day to bring food to the very poor, build schools and hospitals, and basically bring a lot of joy to a lot of people.
When it comes to war I would also say that religion can be a big factor, and has been, especially in centuries gone by... but nowadays it seems like oil is the true driving force behind conflicts...

Religion can be extreme in it's views, for example the idea that if you commit mortal sins you can go to hell for all eternity. I don't believe that for one second, but if someone else believes it and it stops them from killing me, or stealing my wallet... then I won't complain too much.:rofl:

So, would the world be better off if all religion suddenly disappeared from the world? I wouldn't be so sure. The oil companies, the greedy super-rich, the muggers and the murderers, would all no doubt still be with us.

I guess all we can do, in a nutshell, is condemn the bad sides but praise, or at least accept the value of the good sides of religion. Taking a balanced view on any subject is usually a form of progress in itself.

With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Nobel Prize Winner Professor Steven Weinberg

 

[laral]

i do not think religion itself is an obstacle, but most of the Established Churches, which declare themselves to be "guardians and interpreters" of God's will and words, certainly have proved and are still proving to be obstacles for progress or for mere human freedom. Most don't know what compasion is, but they talk about Charit(ies) which in many cases are a way to show off and boast how "good" those churches are

 

[richym]

I cannot post them here for it would make this a little too long. But read these 613 biblical laws and tell me how exactly are all of them asking people to look after the poor and the needy.
http://www.hisglory.us/DOCUMENTS/613_biblical_laws.htm

Hey there. As you point out, it is hard to post everything here, and probably trying to answer each comment in a couple of sentances, so as not to bore everyone (though I suspect it might be too late for that) I have probably made a pigs ear of trying to explain my point. So let me try and start again, because you are absolutely right, all the laws are not about looking after the poor and needy.
If you look through the laws in the Old Testament there is a radical care for the poor and the needy. Farmers are not to carefully make sure they gather all their crops, but should leave some for the poor and foreigners. Debts should be forgiven every 7th year. Every 7th 7th year all property should be returned to it's orginal owner. There is an attempt to bring about care and equality. (Of course they all the laws that got ignored because they are inconvenient to most people.) Our problem when we look at the law is we try to apply them into a 21st century world and we say, well they are barbaric. They have slaves and things like that, that is terrible. That's because they were not written for the 21st century, but rather for a group of people in somewhere around 1500BC. They lived in a time where slaves were common, but they are given rules that will make sure they treat slaves well. And so on and so forth. To our world which is so different, they seem terrible.
The best analogy I could think of as I lay awake last night thinking it over is this. Almost 20 years ago Australia has a terrible shooting masacre, so strict gun laws were brought in, the assumption was that people should not have guns, and laws were made for those who needed one. On the other hand USA have had numerous masacres, but their assumption is that everyone has the right to bare arms, so they need to make different laws because the assumption is that people have guns. In the 21st we are like Australia if you change the thing to slaves, people should not have them. But the context of the Old Testament law is like USA, there were slaves, so they needed laws about what to do, but these laws were about caring for the slaves.
It seems to me the key for the Old Testament law was not following it blindly, but to see in it the need for justice and care. Micah, Amos and other prophets point out, God doesn't want people just doing the sacrifices and keeping the law. He wants them to do justice, to look after the needy and the vulnerable.
I hope that explains it better, probably not.

It wasn't their choice. God did not give them the choice. Also, contrary to what you believe, if anything, it is the opposite that happened. God talking to people in bushes = believed and followed; god talking to people as a human (ie Jesus) = they killed him.

When the people come to Mount Siani God shows up on the mountain, and the people clearly tell Moses, you go and talk to God, we are too scared of him. So that is their choice not to engage with God. That probably then impacts how they see God from then on, because now God is the one that Moses talks to, not them. God is at a distance, so there is not the deep trust that could have been.
God does indeed find ways to communicate with people, be it through a burning bush or through becoming a human. And we have different records of that, but then again you chould wonder, how many times could you record that God tried to talk to people and they ignored him. (There is no way of knowing that one, just throwing out a thought).
I think your second point is true, maybe it is easier to listen to a God who turns up in a burning bush, but you know will disappear, than a man who is walking around every day? I don't know, perhaps the difference though is the God in the bushes is calling people to follow him and give them power, Jesus is challenging the institution. It should also be said Jesus had a great number of people who followed him.

Because the Hebrew god originated from the Jews. It started there, and limited only within the Jewish community.

Yes God chooses Abraham, and thus the Hebrew people see themselves as special. But their role was always to share that news with others, and God through the prophets tries to bring them back to doing this.

Well, then that's FAITH, not RELIGION, as the thread asked. Faith could inspire progress, but religions suppress any other possibility.

Yes there is the conflict between faith and religion. And believe you me, the religious institution frustrates the hell out of me. But I think we need to be careful not to look at the worst of the institutions and say that every believer, or every church within that faith is like that. There is difference, and we need to acknowledge that. I was listening to a Muslim speker and he said his wife challenged him. She told him, "You compare the best of the Muslim faith with the worst of the other faiths. Instead you should compare the worst of our faith, with the best of the others." When we want to point out our faith is best, we look at the best people from ours, and compare them with the worst. So i might say, look at how great Mother Teresa was, look at how terrible Stalin was. Obviously Christianity is greater than anti faith. But that would be bollocks. I have to recognise we have some real idiots in Chrisitianity, and there are some wonderful people who are atheist, who I can learn from. Which is why I like having this conversation with you. We may never agree with each other, but I believe we can learn from each other, so thanks, (I'm not going to see you as some devil with horns that I need to beat around the head with the Bible till you submit).

So again, how could the rules on slavery, women, rebellious children, or working on Sundays be interpreted any other way?

I think I sort of covered that on the first one, that there was a different cultural context when they were written, that no longer applies, so they no longer apply. This probably is wrong, or will come out wrong, but perhaps the law about stoning a rebellious child, is more to encourage you to look after your child well, teach them well, so that this stoning would never possibly happen. In a cultural context where children were fairly unimportant and ignored, perhaps parents needed a reminder, they are your responsibility, you need to help them to grow up well. (There are a number of parents today could do with that piece of advice).

If you're talking about rules like circision then I'd agree. It was needed in that region in that era. But that would only further show that this god is the god of the Hebrew people in that given time, not a timeless universal one.

Yes I guess you could see it like that, or that those laws are for a particular time, but they no longer apply any more, and the New Testament would suggest that. And you are probably going to ask, why keep them in? There is several bits in the Bible I wish they cut. Esepcially in Exodus where God gives Moses the instruction for building the tabernacle, all the measurments and how much of what material to use, that is boring and goes on for a chapter or two. And then a couple of chapters later they build the tabernacle, and give you all the same details again. They stay in there because that is part of the history. I think it is important that we recognise that there are different genres in the Bible, and we do not just apply it all literally. Some things are just history and they tell us how things were, that is what i believe the case is with that material.

...So he is not all powerful.

I don't think that is the natural outcome of that arguement. God is all powerful, it is just to experience being fully human, he must give up some of those powers. Does it mean that when on earth Jesus was not all powerful, I guess that yes I would agree with you on that one.
I came up with another analogy last night, this will probably suck as much as the last one. I can look at a dog and think, well I know what their life is like. But if I've never tried to be a dog, then I don't really. I don't see the world from their perspective, I don't have their issues. To understand I would need to walk around on four legs, I would have to eat out of a bowl, I would have to start peeing on lampposts. Does that mean that I am unable to walk on two legs? No I still have that ability, but in order to be a dog I give up that ability and walk on four legs. Does it mean I can't eat with a knife and fork. Well no, I know how to do that, but in order to be a dog, I give up that right. So to be a human Jesus has to give up some of his knowledge and abilities, hope that works. (And please don't see that as some latent hint of sexual fetishes, it isn't ).

The contradictions are exactly like how they would be if these 'witnesses' wrote the books just by hearing the rumours around them.
And if the 'witnesses' cannot even remember something as simple as whether the tomb was opened already, or if people already knew Jesus left the tomb when they went for him, it could be that everything could be mistakes. How do you actually trust any of the bits, especially the less important ones? With such inconsistency, why would they not be suspected to be largely made-up stories?

I guess this depends on how you view differences in witnesses. I could try and justify differences, and you could argue I am just biased. Looking at the issue of the stone, Mark, Luke and John state it was rolled away when they got there, Matthew says there was an eathquake and with an angel the stone is rolled away, probably in the presence of the women. Now you have a group of women who are grief stricken, they have come to wrap up the body (I don't think that any stage any of them are going expecting the body not to be there) and they suddenly see the body is gone, and angels appear to them. They are probably not going to make a whole heap of sense when they get back, and their versions of accounts may vary differently. I guess in my mind, the differences are there, but can be explained as different witnesses. You see them as far more crucial than that. I would though join the number of scholars who say that the gospels contained in the New Testament are good historical sources.

To stop evil IS the necessary quality of a moral being. This is one of the reason why the theology cannot possibly be possible. Because it is utterly illogical. You cannot really be all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere at the same time, AND yet still being all good.

All I can say is that in my view, God has given us free will, this allows us the option to do the wrong thing. It is not that God wants us to do the wrong thing, but he must allow us that option. Sorry that obviously doesn't meet your standard, so guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Also, this is not necessarily true. He could have created humans to only be good people.

But if we can only choose the good option, is that free will. Surely free will is that we can pick any option, not just the one God wants?

Free will in itself is yet another thing to make the theology impossible. If everything is planned by god, how is free will possible? On the other hand, do we actually have 'free' will if we would get severely punished for not acting in god's will?

That is where your theological position on predestination comes in. Does God plan absolutely everything that is going to happen, I don't believe so. Does God know the decisions we will make, yes I think so. He know them, because he knows us well, but he doesn't plan them out for us. The analogy I always use is that when we go out for dinner, I know that my wife is going to get the chicken snitzel. She has the choice of the whole menu, I don't force her, but at least 9 times out of 10 that's what she will have. I know that because I know her. God knows what we will do, because he knows us, not because he makes us do that. The point abour free will if we get punnished, people murder knowing they will go to jail for life, or in some countries be executed. Do those laws inhibit their free will?

Yes. A catholic kindergarten, catholic primary schools (I went to two different ones), and a catholic secondary school. Was the vice-chairperson to the Catholic Society and awarded best performance in ethics and religious studies in secondary. I also taught in two christian primary schools, and one another christian secondary school. Not only did I myself go to Sunday School, my mother is a Sunday School teacher, whilst my brother remains an altar boy.

Wow, thanks for that, and interesting life so far. How did you find the Catholic school system? (if you don't mind me asking).