Fish For God?

[General Zod]

Who's this Job guy? Yet another scripture? I've never heard of God and Satan dealing this way, and by definition Satan never took orders from God, so there's no way God told Satan to go and kill or do whatever.

It's like every time you need to counter my arguments, you bring up material I never heard of before. Can someone PLEASE work with the premises I made my conclusions upon instead of rushing outside of the frame of reference to get one or the other zillion quotes written by a bunch of people I never heard of.

I'm giving specific examples of sociopathic behavior. If you haven't bothered to read the same book that everyone else pulls God from, that's really not my problem.

6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

[krakonfour]

I'm giving specific examples of sociopathic behavior. If you haven't bothered to read the same book that everyone else pulls God from, that's really not my problem.

You give me information A, B and C, and I use them to work out a conclusion S. Instead of reusing the same information and proving that my conclusion is wrong, you bring D into play.

It doesn't work that way, because then you can cherry pick only the information that presents your case favorably.

6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

[/quote]

Pretty simple to understand. Job is good, faithful believer not because God has given him wealth and protection, but because God is confident that Job will still believe in him when all the wealth and earthly possessions are removed from him.

Satan does not care that Job possesses these things. Satan wants to convert Job to his side, so he taunts God, saying that Job only believes in you because you protect him and give him wealth. God's answer is not: Go kill Job's family, but : I remove my protection, and he will still believe.

So yeah, even the information you throw in to the discussion can be interpreted differently than the non-founded 'oh he's a sociopath according to MY rules and that's the way I like it'.

[Borgholio]

Whoah, why would they do that? God gave us intelligence to understand the world and question his existence. Blind belief is worthless.

Welcome to SDN. You just pointed out the single biggest hair-pulling aspect of trying to argue with fundies. You argue against the bible, they point to the bible as proof that the bible is correct. Circular logic, can't get past it.

Evil is a choice that breaks the rules, so if you're one of those that says free will does not exist bla bla it's God that is pulling the trigger, because he made triggers alongside the sea, the sky and animals... then there's no point in blaming anyone for anything because blame supposed someone cares about the masses of puppets controlled by pre-determined events.

If I were to give my children free will, I would teach them the difference between good and evil. I wouldn't set them loose in the world to learn on their own, or learn from people who are already evil, then punish them later when they get back to me. If God gave us free will, he MUST have known that some people would choose evil for whatever reason. With that said, he should have taken a more active hand in "raising" us than a book that has been edited (pun intended) God-knows how many times, translated repeatedly with different results, and even split into different religious doctrines (Judaism, Islam, etc...).

In other words, if he gave us truly free will, he's responsible for teaching us and then punishing us ONLY if we ignore his teaching. But ask any real teacher these days, if you just sit on your ass and pass around some random manuscript instead of actively taking a hand in your student's education, then only the teacher is to blame if the students screw up.

Whether the cause is just, or whether a cause exists or not, depends on whether you want to see it or not. As I said before, I'm not trying here to convince or comment about beliefs.
This returns to the concept of 'Who owns life?'. If God created life, and gave those babies souls, then takes them back to heaven before they were judged on Earth, then it is on the same scale as a forest burning up and thousands of animals being charred alive.

Unless the forest fire was started deliberately, in which case it becomes a crime.

Thankfully, he is a just God and won't go about killing people randomly.

Passover, Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon, The Flood, etc...

Oh and don't forget Revelation, where he will murder billions who don't worship him and DESTROY THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET.

Aside from those examples, yeah he'd never kill anybody randomly.

[cadbrowser]

No need to call me delusional either, otherwise you wouldn't be bother to type a reply.

Wrong, the benefit is for others out there lurking and reading so that they can see how batshit dilusional you are.

Have you ever considered that 'not knowing about the basic principles of Christianty' might mean that 'I believe in a whole fucking different set of beliefs, maybe even another religion?'

Then why the fuck would you attempt to derail this thread by bringing worthless statements regarding Christianity if you believe is something different? Are you just trolling?

Fine, what fucked up variation of Christianity DO you believe in? The bullshit you are bringing to this thread regarding Heaven and Hell does not jibe with any established contemporary Christian dogma that I have ever read on.

I might have learnt things differently than what is printed in the Bible.

Then according to every other fucking variation of Christianity out there (to and including Jewish and Muslim teachings you are a blasphemer, a false prophet, and are going to hell (with the exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as they do not believe in a literal Hell.)

Doubly false. First, I undeerstand that that quote has an equivalent over here, essentially saying that there is no other 'good belief' other than that defined by this particular God, and that is a consequence of believing in a single God. Also, we put a lot of emphasis on respecting other beliefs, and there is no need for antichrists, false prophets and all that drivel to realize an alternate path exists if you believe in it.

Two questions:
1. Where is "over here"?
2. What variation of "Christianity" do you belive in?

Who is this "we" that you speak of that puts a lot of emphasis on respecting other beliefs? I surely don't, many on this forum probably don't either. However, I and many others here in the US do respect the right, and will die defending that right, as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution, for any citizen the free exercise of religion...even if the beliefs in that religion are stupid.

After all, it is a recognized possibility for all members of the three major religions to attain heaven.

What are the three major religions?
I'll give you a hint: It's not what you think.
The original post is regarding Christianity. According to THEIR teachings there is only ONE way to get into heaven. I just told you what it was.

See above

For what? Your "above" doesn't change the facts.

Also, why would God be desperate for anything? He is all-powerful, and has no needs. What he does is demand respect.

Yes, just like ANY abusive person does. They don't EARN respect, they DEMAND it. It is the actions of a sociopathic meglomaniac.

Imagine a large corporation. Over the years, you built it up to what it is now, and you own and manage it. One day, an employee clips your parking lot and gives you the finger on his way to work. A human would get angry and fire him. Now if you were God and the corporation was Earth, firing the guy would mean killing him.

What sort of fucked up moral compass did you get from the cereal box? Only a brainwashed idiot would equate firing to killing. Are you shitting me? No, I wouldn't fire him outright, he is my employee not my fucking slave. I would confront him and find out what his problem is. It scares me to think that you condone the actions of killing a human, by an omnipotent being, justified simply because someone "offended" Him.

What happens when you disrespect God?

Do you mean according to the Bible, or according to your retarded variation of something that may or may not be Christianity but you won't say so you can continue this charade.

Also, the thing about all of creation praising god if humanity refuses to do is a way of showing how much mastery over reality and power over creation God wields. If even the rocks recognize that God is God, why wouldn't Humans do so?

Rocks aren't sentient. There is no evidence to support the claim that any paranormal/supernatural single entity exists. Humans have to reason to.

- SNIP NONESENSE - And in the end, come on, did he kill his son?

What fucking difference does it make? Apparently the whole goddamn point just sailed over your head. It is really telling that you see no moral issue with an omnipotent being ordering a subject to kill his own son as proof of faith. The fact that you defend these actions is appaling. Ever heard of John 3:16?

What research have you conducted to prove that 'maybe'='rebut your claim'?

Don't fucking get cute asshat. Or do you really not know what is insinuated when you reply with a "maybe" to someone making a statement? Especially on a public forum. By declaring a maybe you are signaling doubt of the statement. Around here you are required to back up your doubts when directed at a statement made backed up by archeological evidence. Maybe since you don't read the Bible, you didn't bother to read the forum rules either. Would make sense based on the quality of replis so far. So, again, what evidence do you bring here that casts doubt against academia for the statement of God's origins being a Caananite mountain God?

So you're telling me, as an intelligent conscious entity, that there is no way for you to imagine yourself unbound of a few restrictions.

Nope, I didn't say that at all. You aren't too bright here are you? According to mainstream Christianity it is impossible to "know" the mind of God. So, my point clearly flew over your head. So no amount of imagination from anyone could break that barrier, to even attempt to try is considered futile.

If you are a dog, then you cannot think except like a dog. If you are human, you can frikken simulate a completely different mind within your own.

Evidence to support this conclusion? Again, I will remind you that "simulating" God is a no no...us mere mortals are not capable of it...according to EVERY fucking Christian that I, and many others here have talked to.

What are the sources of suffering?
The ones out of human control are governed by the laws of Nature. An epidemic or a drought don't appear out of nowhere, they come from a virus we can combat or a water shortage we can relieve. The rest are caused by humans and their actions, deliberate or not. In that case... why blame God for the murder deciding to kill? Why blame God for a massacre a General decided must be done? A stillbirth is caused by an imbalance of hormones. A delinquent is caused by bad parents.

You still don't get it do you dumabss? Lets try this one more time:

I think Epicurus handled this one rather neatly.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Resolve this paradox or conceed that a "loving", omnipotent (you do know what this means right?) being allowing His "chosen" species to suffer by CURSING every human and their seed is evil.

Here is the difference between Me and God.

God sits by and watches as an 8 year old girl gets sodomized by her step father, while her mother is in the other room passed out from drinking too much alcohol. It is His will that she gets sodomized, so he can "test" her.

I do not sit by. If I strictly adhere to the law, I will report the crime to the proper authorities, because the police do NOT want civilians confronting a law breaker. However, If I was to be true to myself, and I witnessed this happening...well, I won't go any further.

Another one:

God sits by and watches my sister struggle with bills due to some unfortuante circumstance. It is his will that their only car just broke down to test them.

I do not sit by. I am pretty good with fixing cars, so I offer to pay for the part, buy them some groceries so they can divert that money to assist them in getting caught up, AND I offer to teach her husband how to diagnose and prevent car issues. Hell, I even help him swap out the faulty part.

God 0
Me 2

Maybe.

I asked you an "OR" question. Your reply doesn't answer it. Let's try this one more time, I'll break it down for you so you wont MISS it this time:

Are you an apologist?

OR

Are you merely playing Devil's advocate?

I try and avoid saying anything about Christianity is wrong.

What the fuck does this have to do with me requesting you to define "bad thoughts" according to Christianity?

Christianity blames you for being evil because you think evil things. I think you did a good thing for not acting upon those thoughts.

No it doesn't. Seriously, you need to stop making false claims regarding Christianity. You are making yourself look like an idiot. Accordingly, Christians teach that even if you think it, it is the same as doing it. So what you think means exactly jack and shit to me or other Christians.

[cadbrowser]

Can someone PLEASE work with the premises I made my conclusions upon instead of rushing outside of the frame of reference to get one or the other zillion quotes written by a bunch of people I never heard of.

This isn't your fucking threat asshole. You fucking follow the rules of the goddamn forum...how about that!

[krakonfour]

If I were to give my children free will, I would teach them the difference between good and evil. I wouldn't set them loose in the world to learn on their own, or learn from people who are already evil, then punish them later when they get back to me. If God gave us free will, he MUST have known that some people would choose evil for whatever reason.

Well, God did try and teach humanity through different chronologically-spaced steps.
First off, Adam and Eve knew about God and his laws, so they would have transmitted this knowledge to their descendants.
That didn't work out, because we ended up with cities like Sodom and humanity on the brink of extinction.
The he sent Abraham. God was actively teaching humans through Abraham, but no-one but a few listened to him, so God decided to wipe Earth out and start over.
Normally, restarting humanity with only believers would have been the end to all of humanity's problems.
Nuh-uh. We got megalomaniacs like the Pharaoh completely deny the existence of God, praying instead to idols. So, God sent down Moses with the Jewish scriptures to learn and spread. First, though, he had to free the believers from the Egyptian rule, so God intervened directly to give them freedom and a home.
Guess what? People did not all become Jews, even after witnessing miracles and supernatural feats of power.
Time passes, we have the Romans conquered most of the known lands, and Jews are a minority that hardly spread their religion. So, god sends down Jesus. God is really heavy-handed with the miracles this time, with stuff popping up everywhere around his Prophet. Jesus creates a small community that will eventually write down his laws and pass them on.
This is God's first success. A widespread religion that does good and is spreading.
However, hundreds of years later, things aren't so pristine. God had left his laws in the hands of humans, and we see the Original Word rewritten into dozens of scriptures, his human Prophet deified and a Church set up that grants itself the authority to speak in God's name through the mouths of humans. If humans are imperfect, then the orders given through humans will be corrupted and God's word will not have the same meaning anymore.
So, God sends down another religion. Very little miracles, and the lasting legacy, Qur'an is written as soon as possible, with explicit rules to not change a thing. It spreads, its successful, but skipping to present time, people have managed to twist even the unaltered Word of God to conduct acts of extremism and terrorism and whatnot. Sadly though, no more interventions from God.

Between these major interventions, some say we have dozens of prophets for different parts of the world. It would be stupid if God only gave instructions to Abraham, only to the Hebrews or only to Christians in Jerusalem, and expected the whole world to follow them. Maybe God has intervened many, many times, and it was successful only in those places. Or the opposite, he tested many many people as candidates to become his messenger and found only a few...

With that said, he should have taken a more active hand in "raising" us than a book that has been edited (pun intended) God-knows how many times, translated repeatedly with different results, and even split into different religious doctrines (Judaism, Islam, etc...).

I think there's a limit to how much God can try to convince people to join him of their own accord by using Miracles and Messengers. As I said, blind belief is bad. Belief, when your own interests are in play, is bad too. At the time of these miracles, many thought it was Jesus the Mage and not Jesus the holy vessel that had the power, so they thought they could join Christianity to gain the power of God. Today, the 'power of God' some people wield is less literal, but the concept remains.

What I'm trying to say is that the Word of God wasn't thrown into the mass aimlessly. He sent, so to say, a whole delegation to convince people and explain the word to them. The miracles were to convince the ignorant, those who did not understand logic and such.

In other words, if he gave us truly free will, he's responsible for teaching us and then punishing us ONLY if we ignore his teaching. But ask any real teacher these days, if you just sit on your ass and pass around some random manuscript instead of actively taking a hand in your student's education, then only the teacher is to blame if the students screw up.

Freedom without knowledge of what is right cannot be judged, that is true.

Unless the forest fire was started deliberately, in which case it becomes a crime.

Who defines that it is a crime? We need a criminal code for that. God is usually the one writing the laws, so I don't think the accusations of 'criminal' or 'sociopath' apply in this case.

Passover, Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon, The Flood, etc...
Oh and don't forget Revelation, where he will murder billions who don't worship him and DESTROY THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET.
Aside from those examples, yeah he'd never kill anybody randomly.

Yup. He killed those people intentionally for their transgressions of his orders, or because they would have threatened people trying to spread his orders.

A final note on death: Time and time again, I keep saying that if God decides someone will die at this time and hour, then he is simply taking back the soul to his realm. It's like... transportation. It can only be considered death if there is no afterlife, and the physical realm is the only realm the person can exist in. In that case, the person is destroyed. Gone forever. Not transported and judged somewhere else. The contradiction here is that if you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in the afterlife, and thus you have nothing to be mad at. Attribute it to random variations of statistic events if it makes you happy.
Same goes for the Revelation. Oh noes everybody goes to Heaven I don't wanna go to Heaven I want to live on Earth longer and what about the BIOSPHERE? I'm sure someone out there will have a better time sleeping at night knowing God does not exist and the revelation will never come.
Yeah, except for the statistical probability of a Gamma Ray Burst wiping everything out anyway.

[cadbrowser]

Dammit...

Can a mod fix my previous reply to say:

This isn't your thread asshole.

If not...consider this a ghetto edit.

[cadbrowser]

krakonfour, where the hell are you getting your information? You keep harping about not knowing about the bible, yet you continue to reference stories IN THE BIBLE. You are not being consistant. Personally, I think you are just trolling. Nothing you have said demonstrates any understanding in logic, morality, or the fundamental teachings of Christians. As others have pointed out, you are just parroting the same incoherent babble that Fundamentalist (aka : Fundies) are fond of. Only, you are doing it VERY badly. You are becomming annoying at best. I suggest you stop with this bullshit conceed and lets move on.

[Borgholio]

Well, God did try and teach humanity through different chronologically-spaced steps.

He didn't try hard enough. Look at what he DID do. He used messengers, prophets, and the like to spread his message. Why not just come down here himself and do it? If half the world heard a burning bush speak to them instead of just Moses, that would have been far more effective. Notice how today, messengers and prophets are looked at as lunatics and nutjobs. One visit from the big guy himself every generation or two would solve that problem easily.

I think there's a limit to how much God can try to convince people to join him of their own accord by using Miracles and Messengers.

Agreed, especially today. See above.

Who defines that it is a crime? We need a criminal code for that. God is usually the one writing the laws, so I don't think the accusations of 'criminal' or 'sociopath' apply in this case.

God only wrote 10 laws really. That's woefully inadequate for the world at large. Sure, the basics such as "Thou shalt not kill" are covered, but what about "Thou shalt not ride thine horseless chariot after consuming wine."?

So basically if God skimps out on writing the law, it's up to us.

Yup. He killed those people intentionally for their transgressions of his orders, or because they would have threatened people trying to spread his orders.

What orders? A good number of the people he used as messengers and prophets were scorned and ridiculed, just like today. Why would he pick such an inefficient method to spread his orders, then punish the people...rather than punishing the messenger who FAILED to pass on the word of God. Again, why didn't God just do it himself if The Message was so important?

It's also worth pointing out that The Flood killed everybody living on the yet undiscovered American continents and Australia. What did God ever do to spread the message to those people before drowning them all?

[cadbrowser]

God only wrote 10 laws really.

IIRC, the whole book of Leviticus and parts of Dueteronomy are considered Mosaic Law...which is (by tradition) all of the laws God handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai (not just the 10 Commandments).

[krakonfour]

Wrong, the benefit is for others out there lurking and reading so that they can see how batshit dilusional you are.

Save yourself the effort then. Call me delusional and be done with it.

Then why the fuck would you attempt to derail this thread by bringing worthless statements regarding Christianity if you believe is something different? Are you just trolling?

This thread had a rail? So far, I've been answering assorted insults, illogical conclusions and the whole 'God is a sociopath because it makes me happy' theory.
I don't discuss what I believe, I only mention it when I need to, because it isn't what I want to do. I want to discuss Christianity and what people say about it. You can consider me to be trolling, but then logical discussions are all just that, right?

Fine, what fucked up variation of Christianity DO you believe in? The bullshit you are bringing to this thread regarding Heaven and Hell does not jibe with any established contemporary Christian dogma that I have ever read on.

The variation that isn't Christianity.
As I just said, I'm not discussing what I believe in.
Anything which seems different from Christianity is either my personal theory or personal belief, and I clearly state when I am moving outside the information provided.

Then according to every other fucking variation of Christianity out there (to and including Jewish and Muslim teachings you are a blasphemer, a false prophet, and are going to hell (with the exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as they do not believe in a literal Hell.)

Okay. I'm totally fine with the Christians, Jews and Muslims that believe I am a blashphemer, false prophet and hell-bound for discussing religion according the the premises given.

Two questions:
1. Where is "over here"?
2. What variation of "Christianity" do you belive in?

-My beliefs.
-Not telling.

Who is this "we" that you speak of that puts a lot of emphasis on respecting other beliefs? I surely don't, many on this forum probably don't either. However, I and many others here in the US do respect the right, and will die defending that right, as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution, for any citizen the free exercise of religion...even if the beliefs in that religion are stupid.

The Magical Rainbow of Tolerance
Also, if you are willing to die for something you do not believe in, then why can't I discuss Christianity without believing in it? Are only other Christians allowed to do that? Is a non-christian not allowed to discuss and think about a bunch of statements, irrespective of origin? Or have you suddenly become protective of Christianity?

What are the three major religions?
I'll give you a hint: It's not what you think.
The original post is regarding Christianity. According to THEIR teachings there is only ONE way to get into heaven. I just told you what it was.

I am deeply sorry. I didn't specify that I was still talking about my personal beliefs. I know that Christianity only recognizes one path to salvation.

Yes, just like ANY abusive person does. They don't EARN respect, they DEMAND it. It is the actions of a sociopathic meglomaniac.

Applying human psychology to something without a brain or peers again?

What sort of fucked up moral compass did you get from the cereal box? Only a brainwashed idiot would equate firing to killing. Are you shitting me? No, I wouldn't fire him outright, he is my employee not my fucking slave. I would confront him and find out what his problem is. It scares me to think that you condone the actions of killing a human, by an omnipotent being, justified simply because someone "offended" Him.

I don't think you understood anything of what I wrote.
The equivalent to removing someone from the corporation is removing someone from the physical realm, inside the anology. That's what you call death. God doesn't do that, so at the very least he is tolerant of people offending him, allowing them to live in the Earth he created even if they deny his existence or call him a sociopath.

How you arrived to the conclusion that I condoned killing people is a mystery to me.

Do you mean according to the Bible, or according to your retarded variation of something that may or may not be Christianity but you won't say so you can continue this charade.

When I ask a question, and it is not explicitly stated that I am working with the assumption that my own beliefs are true, then it is invariably under the assumption that Christianity is true, because we are discussing Christianity.
It was a rhetorical question too.
You regularly insult God, and yet you are still alive to spew swear words and to repeat questions. So, God does not kill you for offending him. Therefore, God is tolerant of people that don't believe in Christianity.

Rocks aren't sentient. There is no evidence to support the claim that any paranormal/supernatural single entity exists. Humans have to reason to.

Is sentience needed to recognize a creator?
According to Christianity, it is not.

What fucking difference does it make? Apparently the whole goddamn point just sailed over your head. It is really telling that you see no moral issue with an omnipotent being ordering a subject to kill his own son as proof of faith. The fact that you defend these actions is appaling.

Considering that people made human sacrifices next door just for the fun of it, in addition to Abraham's son specifically being requested as a gift from God (a miracle, since his wife was sterile) so God had every right to take the son back, then I don't think God asking for sacrifice is specially heinous or weird. And then He told Abraham to not kill him. That counts the same way pointing a gun at someone and not shooting is less of an offense than actually shooting and killing.

Also, again... defending?! Not once did I say that is was a good thing, nor did I say it was wrong. All I said was that it isn't as appalling as you make it out to be.

Ever heard of John 3:16?

Probably not.

Don't fucking get cute asshat. Or do you really not know what is insinuated when you reply with a "maybe" to someone making a statement? Especially on a public forum. By declaring a maybe you are signaling doubt of the statement. Around here you are required to back up your doubts when directed at a statement made backed up by archeological evidence. Maybe since you don't read the Bible, you didn't bother to read the forum rules either. Would make sense based on the quality of replis so far. So, again, what evidence do you bring here that casts doubt against academia for the statement of God's origins being a Caananite mountain God?

A cute asshat. An oxymoron befitting of your sparse use of logic.

Now, the 'maybe' has many meaning. It seems I have to explain them to you. English is not my first language so I may be wrong-
-I am uncertain of my answer.
-I do not trust my answer to not offend you so I will open up the possibility that God is not a Caaninite Mountain God.

Nope, I didn't say that at all. You aren't too bright here are you? According to mainstream Christianity it is impossible to "know" the mind of God. So, my point clearly flew over your head. So no amount of imagination from anyone could break that barrier, to even attempt to try is considered futile.

Yes, God's mind is unknowable. We cannot simulate the full thoughts of God, or the entire reasoning behind his actions.
Logic is logic however and if there is an action, a reason can be deduced.
Not even attempting to seems like a lack of effort, not imagination.

Evidence to support this conclusion? Again, I will remind you that "simulating" God is a no no...us mere mortals are not capable of it...according to EVERY fucking Christian that I, and many others here have talked to.

Evidence to support the conclusion that I can imagine a different brain working within mine, like an emulated OS? Ehh.... I can do it by doing this: Why does the bird decide to fly away? Omigod I just simulated the functioning of a bird's brain and decided it was to escape danger using the ability of flight.

While God is a 'black box' for us, the cause and consequences are not out of reach.

You still don't get it do you dumabss? Lets try this one more time:

I think Epicurus handled this one rather neatly.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Resolve this paradox or conceed that a "loving", omnipotent (you do know what this means right?) being allowing His "chosen" species to suffer by CURSING every human and their seed is evil.

You want me to answer Epicurus's paradox directly? That's impossible. It's a well-built paradox that requires you to change the premises. So that's what I'll do.

In Christianity, evil comes from the Apple. We ate it, and integrated evil into ourselves, and thus became creatures unfit for living in Heaven. This evil is transmitted to our descendants. All evil that exists is therefore from human actions or Satan, who wishes to amplify them through temptation and natural disasters he causes. Because of this we are all sinners, and must repent for existing, and all deaths and evil actions are justified because God is punishing the sinners with his wrath. It is up to Christians to remain faithful until they reach Heaven despite the hardships.

I won't comment anymore on how the Church came up with this system that keeps followers knocking at its doors.
In my belief, evil exists for another purpose, but as I said before, not discussing it.

Here is the difference between Me and God.

God sits by and watches as an 8 year old girl gets sodomized by her step father, while her mother is in the other room passed out from drinking too much alcohol. It is His will that she gets sodomized, so he can "test" her.

Always first with the rape, incest and pedophilia, right? What I like about these thought experiments is how the one who issues them tries to shock and disgust the audience into agreeing with him, since any answer other than one you want to obtain must be an apology for the situation you described.

Well, guess what. The stepdad burns in hell, the mother is condemned for not caring for her child, and the girls with the consequences. If she maintains her belief in God, understands it was a horrible test that she must survive and stay strong (me)/understands that she is being punished for her evil and her faith tested (Christianity), and has a better chance of entering Heaven.

Yes, these belief systems do not give immediate punishment of wrongdoers/protection of those harmed, that comes later. Some people cannot wait for ulterior justice to be served, and curse God for not protecting them at that moment.

I do not sit by. If I strictly adhere to the law, I will report the crime to the proper authorities, because the police do NOT want civilians confronting a law breaker. However, If I was to be true to myself, and I witnessed this happening...well, I won't go any further.

What a good Samaritan within the disgusting scenario you came up with. It's what anyone should be doing anyway, and that is why it is recommended for believers to do good to themselves but also to others.

Another one:

God sits by and watches my sister struggle with bills due to some unfortuante circumstance. It is his will that their only car just broke down to test them.

I do not sit by. I am pretty good with fixing cars, so I offer to pay for the part, buy them some groceries so they can divert that money to assist them in getting caught up, AND I offer to teach her husband how to diagnose and prevent car issues. Hell, I even help him swap out the faulty part.

I don't get it. How is it God's fault that your sister has financial troubles? He gives wealth, he takes wealth, wealth does not automatically belong to Humans because they did not create it. Poverty or wealth is just another factor in the test.
Your actions would not be special either. You will be rewarded for doing good, and punished for doing nothing. Doing good includes helping your sister and fixing their car.

God 0
Me 2

Nice. What are you counting?

I asked you an "OR" question. Your reply doesn't answer it. Let's try this one more time, I'll break it down for you so you wont MISS it this time:

Are you an apologist?

OR

Are you merely playing Devil's advocate?

Not an apologist. I'm not saying bad things are acceptable, unless your definition of a bad thing (God) and mine differ. Not playing Devil's advocate, because I am not actively defending Christianity or God's actions, just explaining them. Of course, if I don't actively criticize another religion, then I'm for it, right?

What the fuck does this have to do with me requesting you to define "bad thoughts" according to Christianity?

A few more seconds of thought would have revealed that an explanation of bad thoughts according to Christianity, by me, would reveal inherent injustice and inconsistencies, which would amount to criticizing another religion, which I do not want to do. Maybe is a better answer than fuck off, I don't want to answer that question and start a firestorm of swear words.

No it doesn't. Seriously, you need to stop making false claims regarding Christianity. You are making yourself look like an idiot. Accordingly, Christians teach that even if you think it, it is the same as doing it. So what you think means exactly jack and shit to me or other Christians.

The "I think" part pertains to my personal beliefs and how they differ from those of Christianity. Or did you not get it. If means exactly jack and shit to you, then you are quoting and answering jack and shit. Save yourself the effort.

[krakonfour]

krakonfour, where the hell are you getting your information? You keep harping about not knowing about the bible, yet you continue to reference stories IN THE BIBLE.

I get this information from what I know about the bible and christianity. I did not read the bible so my conclusions are limited to this general knowledge. Call it a 'layman's knowledge' of the Bible, since I don't think every person on the street can quote specific passages of the bible like some have done in the thread.

You are not being consistant. Personally, I think you are just trolling. Nothing you have said demonstrates any understanding in logic, morality, or the fundamental teachings of Christians. As others have pointed out, you are just parroting the same incoherent babble that Fundamentalist (aka : Fundies) are fond of. Only, you are doing it VERY badly. You are becomming annoying at best. I suggest you stop with this bullshit conceed and lets move on.

That's strange, because I don't know much about Fundies, and much less about how they convince their public. Anything I do here, I came up with it on my own.
Also, moving on to what? I'm alone trying to explain and work out Christian dogma, while the three of you continuously insult me and disprove my arguments through dishonest methods such as 'I believe the definition of Evil to be different from yours, so you are wrong' and 'Aha! You didn't read this line in the bible and thus your previous conclusion that did not take account this information is wrong!'

He didn't try hard enough.

Maybe not, but that's a matter of perspective. 3.8 billion people believe in God, and most of them try and follow his laws.

Look at what he DID do. He used messengers, prophets, and the like to spread his message. Why not just come down here himself and do it? If half the world heard a burning bush speak to them instead of just Moses, that would have been far more effective. Notice how today, messengers and prophets are looked at as lunatics and nutjobs. One visit from the big guy himself every generation or two would solve that problem easily.

What's the point of testing our faith in God if you just have to raise your eyes and see Him? That reduces the choice to 'I see God', literally, or 'God is an illusion', as in I do not trust my senses and for that reason solely I do not believe in God... none of which is a good answer.

God only wrote 10 laws really. That's woefully inadequate for the world at large. Sure, the basics such as "Thou shalt not kill" are covered, but what about "Thou shalt not ride thine horseless chariot after consuming wine."?

So basically if God skimps out on writing the law, it's up to us.

There's no wrong in that, as long as we follow the core rules. In fact, I think it's encouraged in Christianity... not sure, can't prove it right now without a quote somewhere.

What orders? A good number of the people he used as messengers and prophets were scorned and ridiculed, just like today. Why would he pick such an inefficient method to spread his orders, then punish the people...rather than punishing the messenger who FAILED to pass on the word of God. Again, why didn't God just do it himself if The Message was so important?

God needs us (Christianity) to believe in his word because we are convinced by it unconditionally. This has difficulty being accepted in our logically demonstrated world of today. It needs a leap of faith. As for whether the messengers failed or not, that's a matter of perspective.

It's also worth pointing out that The Flood killed everybody living on the yet undiscovered American continents and Australia. What did God ever do to spread the message to those people before drowning them all?

I really try and avoid mixing up archaeological evidence with Biblical events. For example, The Americas and Oceania may not have been colonized at the time Abraham lived. What time period did he live in specifically? Did the flood really extend over the whole planet or solely the land known to Abraham, which would limit it to a small pool around the Middle East... Who knows, also, whether the Americas and Australia has their own prophets and word of god, and were simply not successful or mentioned in the Middle Eastern Bible? The same goes for Asia. No prophets sent there, like, ever?

I don't have answers for these questions, so I can't really make speculation enter in the discussion.

[cadbrowser]

I want to discuss Christianity and what people say about it.

No you don't. You want to discuss your retarded and unfounded variation of what you think Christianity is. Everyone here on this forum discusses Christianity based on their teachings in the Bible. It is the whole fucking foundation of Christianity. Why can't you get that through your thick skull? You are misrepresenting the belief systems of that faith, in and of itself that is disrespectful, to which you claim to hold umost respect to other faith based systems. So again, either you are just trolling, or you are stupid.

Anything which seems different from Christianity is either my personal theory or personal belief, and I clearly state when I am moving outside the information provided.

Then stop using the exact same arguments that fundamentalist christians use. You are fooling no one. None of what you have written so far convinces me that it is a "personal" theory or belief. You are lying. Dishonesty on this forum is looked down upon worse than insults.

Also, if you are willing to die for something you do not believe in, then why can't I discuss Christianity without believing in it?

I never said you couldn't. You are attempting to discuss Christianity without knowing what Christianity is. That is the fucking issue I have. Get it yet?

Are only other Christians allowed to do that?

Nope. Evidence...THIS ENTIRE FUCKING SITE.

Is a non-christian not allowed to discuss and think about a bunch of statements, irrespective of origin?

Anyone is allowed to discuss any topic they choose. However, they must obey the rules of the board, they must show competence with the subject matter, they must be willing to admit defeat of a position, they must know how to construct a logical argument. You have not done any of these things.

Or have you suddenly become protective of Christianity?

I am protective of following board rules. I will protect the right for someone to be a Christian, even if I personally do not respect the tenants of their faith.

I didn't specify that I was still talking about my personal beliefs.

When did you start? I've seen nothing provided before that leads me to believe that your personal beliefs aren't anything but the same tired diatribe of Fundamentalist apologetics.

Applying human psychology to something without a brain or peers again?

Evidence this "something" you speak of actually exists?

The equivalent to removing someone from the corporation is removing someone from the physical realm, inside the anology.

Your analogy is a bad one. That's the point I was making. It is not even REMOTELY equivalant.

How you arrived to the conclusion that I condoned killing people is a mystery to me.

Nice way to twist my words around, asshole. I said you condone an omnipotent being killing people. You've made this quite clear in several replies throughout this thread by falling back to the exact same apologist replies that fundamentalist do. You are not fooling anyone here.

You regularly insult God, and yet you are still alive to spew swear words and to repeat questions. So, God does not kill you for offending him. Therefore, God is tolerant of people that don't believe in Christianity.

Wrong. God does not exist.
But, to answer as a Christian would..."You will burn in hell for all eternity for using blasphemy and refusing to accept His love and Son into your heart." So, you are still wrong; God will still kill me, and then send me to Hell so that my "soul" can remain in eternal torture; for offending him.

Is sentience needed to recognize a creator?
According to Christianity, it is not.

How do you know? You have not displayed even a meger level of competence of what Christianity actually is.

Considering that people made human sacrifices next door just for the fun of it...

Source for this claim?

...in addition to Abraham's son specifically being requested as a gift from God (a miracle, since his wife was sterile) so God had every right to take the son back, then I don't think God asking for sacrifice is specially heinous or weird. And then He told Abraham to not kill him.

You don't? Asking a father to kill his son for evidence of loyalty is completely ok with you? No, God couldn't be bothered to do that himself, he sent an angel to stop Abraham. READ THE FUCKING BIBLE if you want to discuss the stories contained within.

-I am uncertain of my answer.

Doesn't fit the context. You never gave an answer to expound on. You replied to a statement casting doubt on the vailidy of the statement without providing a competent argument agaisnt the statement. You do realize there are standards here don't you?

-I do not trust my answer to not offend you so I will open up the possibility that God is not a Caaninite Mountain God.

You favor syle over substance? Who the fuck cares if you offend me? I sure as hell don't. If it is your stance that there is a possibility for God to NOT be a CMD, the quit being a pussy and come right out and say it. Of course, around here you have to back up your alternate stance with reliable sources citing dissention to the majority of those that have provided evidence FOR that statement. If you don't want to address it, then keep your fucking mouth shut.

Yes, God's mind is unknowable. We cannot simulate the full thoughts of God, or the entire reasoning behind his actions.

Thank you. Concession accepted.

In Christianity, evil comes from the Apple. We ate it, and integrated evil into ourselves, and thus became creatures unfit for living in Heaven. This evil is transmitted to our descendants. All evil that exists is therefore from human actions or Satan, who wishes to amplify them through temptation and natural disasters he causes. Because of this we are all sinners, and must repent for existing, and all deaths and evil actions are justified because God is punishing the sinners with his wrath. It is up to Christians to remain faithful until they reach Heaven despite the hardships.

Here again, you are spouting bullshit regarding what Christians believe. Seriously, you need to bow out; go read books that CLEARLY define what Christianity is (including the Bible) and then come back with competence.

Always first with the rape, incest and pedophilia, right? What I like about these thought experiments is how the one who issues them tries to shock and disgust the audience into agreeing with him, since any answer other than one you want to obtain must be an apology for the situation you described.

Nope, it is a fact of life that happens every fucking day somewhere. If not specifically this, something equally as bad. The fact of the matter is, you cannot satisfy the requirements of the experiment without looking like a fucking doucebag apologist making it OK for an omnipotent being to sit back and do NOTHING, when He has the power AND the knowledge to stop it. Seems to be something else you can't get through your fucking skull.

Well, guess what. The stepdad burns in hell, the mother is condemned for not caring for her child, and the girls with the consequences. If she maintains her belief in God, understands it was a horrible test that she must survive and stay strong (me)/understands that she is being punished for her evil and her faith tested (Christianity), and has a better chance of entering Heaven.

Really? You know that for a fact (as you are siding with Chritian theology here)? If this is true then why are there any laws to begin with? God is going to "fix it all in the end"...right? Fuck me you are stupid.

Pray tell, what the fuck SIN has an 8 year old commited that is so evil that being assraped by her stepfather is fucking justified as a test of faith?

What a good Samaritan within the disgusting scenario you came up with. It's what anyone should be doing anyway, and that is why it is recommended for believers to do good to themselves but also to others.

Nice to see you totally missed the point...AGAIN!

How is it God's fault that your sister has financial troubles?

Never said it was. You failed again to understand the point. You are getting remarkably good at that.

Maybe is a better answer than fuck off, I don't want to answer that question and start a firestorm of swear words.

Sorry dumbass, you are not allowed to do that. Go read the fucking rules of the forum.

The "I think" part pertains to my personal beliefs and how they differ from those of Christianity.

And I give a fuck exactly how? Thought we weren't talking about YOUR beliefs! Show some fucking consistency.

I'm alone trying to explain and work out Christian dogma...

And you are doing a very poor job of it. Goddamn, why don't you get it yet?

YOU CAN'T WORK OUT CHRISTIAN DOGMA WITHOUT FIRST KNOWING WHAT IT IS. YOU CAN KNOW BY READING THEIR FUCKING BOOK OF RULES - I.E. THE FUCKING BIBLE!

[Eternal_Freedom]

I didn't mention free will, I was pointing out that you can blame a God for a murderer's action, if that God knows the decision, is able to prevent it and willingly does not.

Oh I get it now. According to you, God is evil because he allows the actions of a bad person to go through to their conclusion.... Well, how do we know if that person is bad if the evil thoughts stay just thoughts? How we do he is evil if the knife is still in the air?

If God stopped all suffering, and stopped all knife stabs and bullets in the air, then he'd have to punish people on intent and he can't do that without removing the choice of banishing those thoughts at the last second.

Also, God knowing the decision and having free will to be judged upon is a contradiction. Its one or the other. You can't be free to choose if your decision has already been made for you.

For the last. Fucking. Time. I DID NOT MENTION FREE WILL. The process runs like this:

1. A murdered makes a conscious decision to kill someone
2. God knows for absolutely certain that this decision will be carried out, because he's all-fucking-knowing.
3. God consciously chooses not to intervene, despite being all-loving and all-powerful

Conclusion: God willingly allows a murder to take place despite having the ability and opportunity to prevent it. Therefore, God is an immoral being.

You can't weasel out of this by saying "how do we know if that person is bad if the evil thoughts stay just thoughts? How we do he is evil if the knife is still in the air?" because God apparently knows absolutely every single thing, past, present and future.

You stipulated that you are assuming that Christianity is completely correct. Therefore, God is all-knowing and all-powerful. That he willingly does not act to prevent suffering and in fact caused it in the first place means he is an immoral being, not to mention a total bastard.

Yes, you have the choice. God also has the ability and the choice to stop you. Since he does not, he's an accessory to the crime and is therefore immoral and a pretty damn terrible being.

Let me rephrase that for you: I hate God because he makes everyone pay for the consequences of their actions in a land where suffering is part of the definition, as an accessory to the test.[/quote]

No, moron. I dislike the idea of God because he willingly and consciously allows such suffering to take place. As for the "they'll pay for it later" part, that's still bullshit, because as per Christian dogma, if the murderer believes in Christianity and repents, he gets into heaven, whilst if the victim does not believe in God, he or she is condemned to Hell for eternity, despite being the fucking victim.

[NoXion]

"The penalty for sin is death"

So does this mean that if one achieves a state of immortality, then they are not a sinner and thus do not require salvation?

[krakonfour]

Oh it's going to be a pain to separate cadbrowser's insults from questions. He quoted less than half of my answers, concentrating on the little that he could insult without too much thought. Since I'm not allowed to ignore him, even if he did ignore over half of my post, I won't do so.

No you don't. You want to discuss your retarded and unfounded variation of what you think Christianity is. Everyone here on this forum discusses Christianity based on their teachings in the Bible. It is the whole fucking foundation of Christianity. Why can't you get that through your thick skull? You are misrepresenting the belief systems of that faith, in and of itself that is disrespectful, to which you claim to hold umost respect to other faith based systems. So again, either you are just trolling, or you are stupid.

So my understanding of Christianity is 'retarded' because it is different from what you understand christianity is? Mine is unfounded but yours is despite both of us sourcing from the Bible? Go tell that to the Protestants. Everybody is entitled to their own understanding of what is said in the bible and you don't get to call it retarded unless you want to directly insult all other branches of Christianity other than yours.

If you think I made a mistake or misinterpretation, correct me instead of saying it/I is stupid. Or does the forum allow you to throw insults and nothing else in your posts?

Then stop using the exact same arguments that fundamentalist christians use. You are fooling no one. None of what you have written so far convinces me that it is a "personal" theory or belief. You are lying. Dishonesty on this forum is looked down upon worse than insults.

I've never met or spoken to a christian fundamentalist, and since I am not Christian myself, I find it strange that you see my personal views as fundie parroting.
And since you disagree with me, I must be lying is your conclusion. May God help you in your life... owait, did I get that one wrong?

I never said you couldn't. You are attempting to discuss Christianity without knowing what Christianity is. That is the fucking issue I have. Get it yet?

Oh, the expert argument. I can't speak something I am not a master of. Guess what. Even you, arrogant prick, don't know Christianity well enough to say anything about it if this is your argument.

The other conclusion is that imperfect knowledge is enough to discuss Christianity, in which case you have no grounds for objection.

Are only other Christians allowed to do that?

Nope. Evidence...THIS ENTIRE FUCKING SITE.

Rhetorical Question.

Is a non-christian not allowed to discuss and think about a bunch of statements, irrespective of origin?

Anyone is allowed to discuss any topic they choose. However, they must obey the rules of the board, they must show competence with the subject matter, they must be willing to admit defeat of a position, they must know how to construct a logical argument. You have not done any of these things.

Rhetorical Question.
How well you think I know Christianity is entirely in your head and won't stop me. If you dislike my brand of logic, I'd love to see yours, considering that only one form of logic exists.

Or have you suddenly become protective of Christianity?

I am protective of following board rules. I will protect the right for someone to be a Christian, even if I personally do not respect the tenants of their faith.

Rhetorical Question, you missed the irony too.
If you are not doing this out of concern for Christianity's reputation, and I am not breaking the forum rules, then you have nothing to say.

I didn't specify that I was still talking about my personal beliefs.

When did you start? I've seen nothing provided before that leads me to believe that your personal beliefs aren't anything but the same tired diatribe of Fundamentalist apologetics.

I started when I said I started, using the english words meaning 'this is what I think'. Refer to previous argument about how my personal beliefs are Fundamentalist apologetics.

Applying human psychology to something without a brain or peers again?

Evidence this "something" you speak of actually exists?

Irrelevant.
How can you call God a sociopath and then question his existence? One or the other.

Your analogy is a bad one. That's the point I was making. It is not even REMOTELY equivalant.

Then say so, and state how the analogy breaks down when trying to prove what it is designed for, instead of just saying it is bad... I think it's somewhere in the Forum rules.

Nice way to twist my words around, asshole. I said you condone an omnipotent being killing people. You've made this quite clear in several replies throughout this thread by falling back to the exact same apologist replies that fundamentalist do. You are not fooling anyone here.

If I'm the asshole, you are shit I have to deal with.

If I do not condone killing people, then I do not condone people being killed by anyone or anything either. And what's your problem with fundamentalists. Is comparing me to them somehow going to improve your position?

You regularly insult God, and yet you are still alive to spew swear words and to repeat questions. So, God does not kill you for offending him. Therefore, God is tolerant of people that don't believe in Christianity.

Wrong. God does not exist.
But, to answer as a Christian would..."You will burn in hell for all eternity for using blasphemy and refusing to accept His love and Son into your heart." So, you are still wrong; God will still kill me, and then send me to Hell so that my "soul" can remain in eternal torture; for offending him.

How can you prove my statement is wrong by saying God does not exist?! The entire fucking premise of my statement is: IF GOD EXISTS then this shit happens. The SHEER SHIT-STUPID BACKASSWARDS IDIOCY OF YOURS IS A PAIN TO DEAL WITH.

Also, the second part ignores the fact that I was limiting myself solely to Earth - physical realm- and you prove that is wrong again because of something that happens AFTERWARDS. Shit-stupid as always, or does your logic work in reverse.

My logic: In case of A true and within B conditions, C is the consequence.
Your logic: If A, then fuck B and C because of D.

How do you know? You have not displayed even a meger level of competence of what Christianity actually is.

Here's a simple statement you are free to ignore in your answer, if you wish to do so:
-Christianity says that the rocks will sing God's praise (we hold this as true for the sake of this argument)
-Rocks are without a conscience or a mind
-Therefore: Conscience is not needed to sing God's praise, implying that they acknowledge his existence

That's how I know.

Source for this claim?

Here's my source:
-God dislike the population that lived around Abraham because they broke every law of His
-There are laws against human sacrifice
-The population around Abraham practiced human sacrifice

That's pretty cheap as an argument, so I'll back it up with this: A large number of pagan religions practices animal sacrifice for their gods. Human sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice, usually dealt to war prisoners. It is not unreasonable that the idol-worshipping peoples of the time practices live sacrifices for their gods, including human sacrifice.

You don't? Asking a father to kill his son for evidence of loyalty is completely ok with you? No, God couldn't be bothered to do that himself, he sent an angel to stop Abraham. READ THE FUCKING BIBLE if you want to discuss the stories contained within.

How many times do I have to type this?! I don't angree or disagree with what I'm discussing. All I said was that it was not specially bad for the time. And God does not appear himself on Earth, so of course he sends a friggen angel. Even if God did decide to descend to Earth, you wouldn't be able to understand what you are seeing.

-I am uncertain of my answer.

Doesn't fit the context. You never gave an answer to expound on. You replied to a statement casting doubt on the vailidy of the statement without providing a competent argument agaisnt the statement. You do realize there are standards here don't you?

Therefore it is not an option, and someone well versed in English will discard that meaning of the word Maybe.

-I do not trust my answer to not offend you so I will open up the possibility that God is not a Caaninite Mountain God.

You favor syle over substance? Who the fuck cares if you offend me? I sure as hell don't. If it is your stance that there is a possibility for God to NOT be a CMD, the quit being a pussy and come right out and say it. Of course, around here you have to back up your alternate stance with reliable sources citing dissention to the majority of those that have provided evidence FOR that statement. If you don't want to address it, then keep your fucking mouth shut.

I am a coward for not insulting you? Well, I have different standards, and I do not develop an invincibility complex because I'm behind a computer screen, but to each his own way of life.

I'm also not allowed to NOT address a question directed at me, according to the forum rules you love reminding me of, so I decided to answer it by opening a possibility. Of course, some people are too dumb and insensitive to understand the implications of talking with someone who believes differently from you.

Yes, God's mind is unknowable. We cannot simulate the full thoughts of God, or the entire reasoning behind his actions.

Thank you. Concession accepted.

Nothing about the second half?

Here again, you are spouting bullshit regarding what Christians believe. Seriously, you need to bow out; go read books that CLEARLY define what Christianity is (including the Bible) and then come back with competence.

In which way is it bullshit? Oh tell me please, I want to know so badly how I am wrong.

Nope, it is a fact of life that happens every fucking day somewhere. If not specifically this, something equally as bad. The fact of the matter is, you cannot satisfy the requirements of the experiment without looking like a fucking doucebag apologist making it OK for an omnipotent being to sit back and do NOTHING, when He has the power AND the knowledge to stop it. Seems to be something else you can't get through your fucking skull.

I've already provided my arguments for this case several times. You are free to read the thread before posting.

Really? You know that for a fact (as you are siding with Chritian theology here)? If this is true then why are there any laws to begin with? God is going to "fix it all in the end"...right? Fuck me you are stupid.

Pray tell, what the fuck SIN has an 8 year old commited that is so evil that being assraped by her stepfather is fucking justified as a test of faith?

Oh, let's make bullet points. Is it my English? You have difficulty understanding my most basic, simply constructed statements.
-I'm not Christian, I don't know what Christian theology says, so anything you percieve as similar is either a coincidence or just in your head.
-If that is true, then having laws or not has nothing to do with it, Mr Ass Backwards.
-The laws are there as criteria for succeeding or failing the test, if you want to know. Also, laws have the option to be broken, otherwise it is a physical impossibility and there is no need for the law to spell it out in that case. So, every law exists because there is a behavior that allows you to break the law.
-God's not going to fix anything in the end. He's just going to judge people and put them in different degrees in heaven, according to Christianity
-According to Christianity, the 8 year old girl committed a sin by existing - the Original Sin.
-Whether the girl is sinful or not does not justify or condemn rape. The rape is damnable on its own grounds, regardless of the victim.

Nice to see you totally missed the point...AGAIN!

The point... why are you talking about the point of the argument if what I wrote was just a sidenote about the value of helping some-one? Ass backwards.

Never said it was. You failed again to understand the point. You are getting remarkably good at that.

First situation implied it was God's fault for letting the girl be raped. You start the second situation by saying your sister has financial problems. I'm deeply sorry for falsely assuming that your arguments had any semblance of structure.

Maybe is a better answer than fuck off, I don't want to answer that question and start a firestorm of swear words.

Sorry dumbass, you are not allowed to do that. Go read the fucking rules of the forum.

Don't preach what you don't do. Avoiding flamewars is part of the rules.

And I give a fuck exactly how? Thought we weren't talking about YOUR beliefs! Show some fucking consistency.

You give a fuck when you aren't able to understand what 'I think' means in the passage's context, and arriving to the conclusion that my thoughts related to Christianity.

And you are doing a very poor job of it. Goddamn, why don't you get it yet?

YOU CAN'T WORK OUT CHRISTIAN DOGMA WITHOUT FIRST KNOWING WHAT IT IS. YOU CAN KNOW BY READING THEIR FUCKING BOOK OF RULES - I.E. THE FUCKING BIBLE!

Thank you for stating your personal opinion. It will be take into consideration and your complaint will be forwarded to the appropriate department of Fuck-Giving.

[krakonfour]

"The penalty for sin is death"

So does this mean that if one achieves a state of immortality, then they are not a sinner and thus do not require salvation?

Two problems:
-Sins and the corresponding punishment has varying degrees, and the punishment is not limited to death.
-Immortality is specifically forbidden for humans.

[krakonfour]

For the last. Fucking. Time. I DID NOT MENTION FREE WILL. The process runs like this:

1. A murdered makes a conscious decision to kill someone
2. God knows for absolutely certain that this decision will be carried out, because he's all-fucking-knowing.
3. God consciously chooses not to intervene, despite being all-loving and all-powerful

Conclusion: God willingly allows a murder to take place despite having the ability and opportunity to prevent it. Therefore, God is an immoral being.

You can't weasel out of this by saying "how do we know if that person is bad if the evil thoughts stay just thoughts? How we do he is evil if the knife is still in the air?" because God apparently knows absolutely every single thing, past, present and future.

You stipulated that you are assuming that Christianity is completely correct. Therefore, God is all-knowing and all-powerful. That he willingly does not act to prevent suffering and in fact caused it in the first place means he is an immoral being, not to mention a total bastard.

Since I've already answered the rest several times, I'll concentrate on this part: "That he willingly does not act to prevent suffering and in fact caused it in the first place"

How do you go from 'not acting' to 'being the origin of' harm and pain?

No, moron. I dislike the idea of God because he willingly and consciously allows such suffering to take place. As for the "they'll pay for it later" part, that's still bullshit, because as per Christian dogma, if the murderer believes in Christianity and repents, he gets into heaven, whilst if the victim does not believe in God, he or she is condemned to Hell for eternity, despite being the fucking victim.

First line, if you are unwilling to accept that a harsh test exists, then you are not forced to acknowledge its demonstration either. You're not the first or last to endlessly parrot the statement on this thread.

As for the second part, it's more interesting. How are you, human, to judge whether a murdered gets to repent in the eyes of God? It's entirely possible that the murderer will find it impossible to repent considering the weight of his act. Also, if the victim goes to Hell, then it's messed up and Christianity will find it hard to explain this injustice.

[Eternal_Freedom]

He gets to repent because the Bible, which you stipulated is completely correct as part of Christianity, says he does. Anything aside from a mortal sin (which does not include murder) can be repented if the person genuinely wishes it. Yes, it is messed up. Yes, it is hard for Christianity to explain it. But you stipulated Christianity was completely correct. Therefore, Christianity is wrong to posit condemning the victim while allowing the perpetrator to enter paradise.

I can happily accept the existence of a harsh test. What I do not accept is the existence of an unfair, pointless, unevenly applied and cruel test.

And I got to "God being the origin of harm" because God created the whole damn universe and is responsible for all fucking things. This really is not hard to understand. Even if he is not responsible for all things (which the Bible, assumed by you to be correct as part of Christianity, says he is) it still does not excuse the "willingly chose not to act" part, which is what makes him immoral. If you've already answered this it will cost you nothing to copy and paste your answer, because I haven't seen one.

A final comment. Instead of worrying about Heaven or Hell and simply accepting the crappiness of Earth as part of the test, how about we try and improve this world instead? We can try and make the suffering test invalid by sorting it ourselves. In other words, we can do God's job of looking after us for him.

[krakonfour]

Whoah, a post not crammed with insults. Umm.. thanks?

He gets to repent because the Bible, which you stipulated is completely correct as part of Christianity, says he does. Anything aside from a mortal sin (which does not include murder) can be repented if the person genuinely wishes it. Yes, it is messed up. Yes, it is hard for Christianity to explain it. But you stipulated Christianity was completely correct. Therefore, Christianity is wrong to posit condemning the victim while allowing the perpetrator to enter paradise.

Isn't it up to God to decide whether the murderer does actually repent or not? I mean, the Bible just states that there is a possibility to do so.
I stipulated that Christianity was completely correct for the purposes of the exercise only. If it is proved to be contradictory in this case, then there is either a mistake in it, which puts the entire infallibility of God's word in question, or it's a mistake in translation/transcription, in which case only the human side to the Bible is put into question.

I'm surprised that murder is not a mortal sin. I didn't know that. Maybe it is to allow soldiers and the police to function with full force?

I can happily accept the existence of a harsh test. What I do not accept is the existence of an unfair, pointless, unevenly applied and cruel test.

How can we test your feelings of jealousy if there never was something to be jealous of? How can we see how you deal with those more powerful or weaker than you if everyone has the same strength? How can we know if you will thank God for your lucky life or feel humbled by your poor luck ? I think the inequality is part of the 'harshness' of the test.

And I got to "God being the origin of harm" because God created the whole damn universe and is responsible for all fucking things. This really is not hard to understand. Even if he is not responsible for all things (which the Bible, assumed by you to be correct as part of Christianity, says he is) it still does not excuse the "willingly chose not to act" part, which is what makes him immoral. If you've already answered this it will cost you nothing to copy and paste your answer, because I haven't seen one.

God is not responsible for the actions of evil men and women, from which most complaints against god arise. You can blame him for not making a test where humans are shielded from negative consequences, but you can't say that God is moving the knife or shooting the bullet. Also, it seems than in the Bible, Satan has a sort of physical power to create bad events, so that's another factor.

My answer for the question was simply that this life on Earth is a test to sort the good from the bad, and that evil, as in the harmful actions brought forth by human ill intent for example, is a necessary part of the test. All complaints against this harshness are compensated by the freedom and limitless immortality in Heaven as a reward. People cannot expect to have a painless life either, or for god to remove hunger and disease, because by definition Earth is hard to live in, and if God remove all the hardships and pain, then he'd be creating a second Heaven, and there'd be no reason for humans to do good or obey God because they are already living in Heaven.
Plus, protecting the victim from hard means the attacker cannot harm, meaning he cannot be an attacker, in which case all ill intent stays in the head instead of being carried out, in which case God cannot punish for simply thinking evil thoughts and repenting.

And death. Death was my final point, Death is not suffering, and God cannot be a murderer, because he's simply messing with something he created and he owns. Killing for God is simply transporting the soul from Earth to Heaven or Hell. He's taking back the gift of life.
Why is life a gift, you might ask, if we must live on Earth? Because He is giving the person the opportunity to prove him or herself worthy of entering Heaven, and Heaven is perfect enough to warrant saying "Living in Heaven is worth anything".
Also, Humans cannot kill, but God can kill, because a human killing another human means that a human is stealing the life from another creation, which is not his. A human would be 'stealing' life from God. The God however owns the life and can do whatever he wants with it.

A final comment. Instead of worrying about Heaven or Hell and simply accepting the crappiness of Earth as part of the test, how about we try and improve this world instead? We can try and make the suffering test invalid by sorting it ourselves. In other words, we can do God's job of looking after us for him.

Didn't Jesus make a speech saying how humanity has to be kind to each other, and that if they follow the divine laws then their life on Earth will be relatively easy? Nothing in the Bible stops us from reducing the pain and harshness of our living conditions.

[NoXion]

Two problems:
-Sins and the corresponding punishment has varying degrees, and the punishment is not limited to death.

What other punishments are there? Suffering in this world? In that case, mere anaesthetics would constitute a defiance of God's plan, let alone altering or rewiring the perceptions of pleasure and pain.

-Immortality is specifically forbidden for humans.

Which chapter and verse forms the basis for such a proscription?

In any case, the gods forbid lots of things, but it's not like that's ever stopped us before. Besides, why should one be afraid of Hell if one is in no danger of ending up there thanks to being immortal?

[cadbrowser]

So my understanding of Christianity is 'retarded' because it is different from what you understand christianity is?

Nope, not at all. How many fucking times do I have to say this? Your understanding of Christianity is retarded simply because you have stated yourself that you have not done the proper research to understand what Christianity is (i.e. reading the Bible). It really doesn't get any simpler than that.

I was a Christian to a non-denominational church for 18 years of my life. They were very fundamentalistic and I followed the core tenants faithfully because I was brainwashed. I have read the bible, in its entirety, no less than seven times. It was a requirement for the children in that church to be able to quote ENTIRE fucking chapters or face physical abuse in the form of spankings. You want to know why?

Psalms 119:11 - Thy word have I hid in my heart that I may not sin against thee.

That was their justification. So fuck you and your pendantic excuse for what you "think" Christianity is.

My deconversion to Athiesm was slow and tedious. I despirately wanted to hold onto the idea of God, but learning how to think for myself and KNOWING the Bible allowed me to conduct further research. And here I am, mostly thanks to the many writings of Michael Wong.

Mine is unfounded but yours is despite both of us sourcing from the Bible?

Nope, again you fail basic comprehension. You have said you've never read the Bible. I have corrected you several times on the stories from the Bible that you keep trying to use. You are bastardizing the stories. I, and others have quoted the Bible to you to CORRECT that basardization. I really can't believe I have to break it down THIS far for you to comprehend.

Go tell that to the Protestants. Everybody is entitled to their own understanding of what is said in the bible and you don't get to call it retarded unless you want to directly insult all other branches of Christianity other than yours.

I insult all branches of Christianiy equally as I consider that they are all full of shit. And NO, according to the BIBLE everyone is NOT entitled to their own understanding of it. They are ALL wrong for changing it around to fit whatever conservative or liberal stance they want. EVERY FUCKING DENOMINATION, according to the BIBLE itself is at risk of Hell for changing, adding, or subtracting the original words.

If you think I made a mistake or misinterpretation, correct me instead of saying it/I is stupid. Or does the forum allow you to throw insults and nothing else in your posts?

I have, several goddamn times. Just because you are too stupid to get them isn't my problem. I am allowed to insult you per the forum rules.

I am doing two sets of corrections here. Firstly, I am correcting your bastardization of Christianity and the stories depicted in the Bible. Secondy, along with others, we are arguing agaisnt the stupidity that you are pawning off. The real wierd thing going on is you keep insisting that you know what Christians would say, when I've told you several times you are wrong, corrected it, rinse, repeat!

I find it strange that you see my personal views as fundie parroting.

I'm not the only one who's said that here. How about this...instead of bitching about it, why don't you go and look up the common apologetic responses to the same questions being posed here and verify for yourself how close your crap = their crap.

And since you disagree with me, I must be lying is your conclusion.

Nope. You have failed to demonstrate ANY original or unique theories or beliefs regarding the concept of God/Christianity as you have claimed. Has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with you. Therefore my conclusion is that you are lying.

Oh, the expert argument. Bla bla bla whine gripe bitch boo hoo...

Holy shit. No dumbass. All I've asked you to do is conduct some fucking research before you spout your "pearls of wisdom" here. You have admitted to not doing any research whatsoever.

How well you think I know Christianity is entirely in your head and won't stop me.

Bullshit, moron. You have fully demonstrated your lack of knowledge right in front of everyfuckingbody reading this thread. And no, I do not have the power to stop you from regirgitating your un-sourced, and un-founded variation of Christianity. But, there are those here that can. Just saying.

Rhetorical Question, you missed the irony too.
If you are not doing this out of concern for Christianity's reputation, and I am not breaking the forum rules, then you have nothing to say.

Nope. I ignored the irony, it was misplaced. You thought you were being cute again. I do think you are breaking some forum rules, but it is not my job to say or to point them out.

I started when I said I started, using the english words meaning 'this is what I think'. Refer to previous argument about how my personal beliefs are Fundamentalist apologetics.

Ah, gotcha, my apologies. Going back, I should've replied as such then...I could care less what you think.

How can you call God a sociopath and then question his existence? One or the other.

I don't question His existance, I flat out claim there is no evidence to support the existance of ANY supernatural entity. You are grabbing at straws covered in vasaline anyway. I will break it down for you from MY perspective (and I suspect the perspective of many others).

I am identifying the very concept of the Christian God as an abusive, sociopathic, homocidal meglomaniac.

Then say so, and state how the analogy breaks down when trying to prove what it is designed for, instead of just saying it is bad...

I did, you just didn't get it.

If I do not condone killing people, then I do not condone people being killed by anyone or anything either.

Your constant apologetics throughout this entire fucing thread provides evidence to the contrary.

And what's your problem with fundamentalists.

Is that supposed to be a question?

Is comparing me to them somehow going to improve your position?

Nope. I didn't do that. I compared the answers you are giving as running parallel to fundamentalist apologetics. Seriously, how many times do I have to go over this?

How can you prove my statement is wrong by saying God does not exist?!

I didn't. You missed it yet again. You attempted to provide a Christians point of view, to which I CORRECTED it to reflect the most POPULAR reply a Christian would give. Sad that you didn't get that.

That goes for the "My logc/Your logic" misgivings as well.

Here's a simple statement you are free to ignore in your answer, if you wish to do so:
-Christianity says that the rocks will sing God's praise (we hold this as true for the sake of this argument)
-Rocks are without a conscience or a mind
-Therefore: Conscience is not needed to sing God's praise, implying that they acknowledge his existence

That's how I know.

The problem with that is I cannot agree with you on the first point. I already stated that when I initially posted that statement. I confirmed, for everyone, that I wasn't quoting the Bible verbatum and that I could be wrong; that I'd have to find the passage if needed for clarity and quality. But, instead of doing any research, you took what I posted (and nothing else...lol) as fact?

Here's my source: - SNIP -

HAHA...That isn't a source. That is merely restating your position and passing it off as fact without any evidence.

A large number of pagan religions practices animal sacrifice for their gods. Human sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice, usually dealt to war prisoners. It is not unreasonable that the idol-worshipping peoples of the time practices live sacrifices for their gods, including human sacrifice.

Here you go again, making a claim without sources. I have a many pagan friends and I have not heard of them making animal sacrifice; to wit, I've also never read anywhere where that is a current practice. Please provide a source for this claim.
Hmmm, AFAIR, when the Aztecs, Mexicans, and Incas were conquered during Spanish colonization, I do recall them using POWs as human sacrifice. That was after 1492 that this was cataloged...you are claiming this happened during the time of Abraham...provide a source for this claim.

Asking you to provide a source for you claim does not automatically dictate that I disagree with your statement. For me, it usually means that I am not as familiar with the "facts" that you are throwing around and I want you to show me your competence by providing sources that back up your claims. This is not an unreasonable request.

I don't angree or disagree with what I'm discussing. All I said was that it was not specially bad for the time.

And you have yet to provide any competent source backing up this claim!

And God does not appear himself on Earth, so of course he sends a friggen angel. Even if God did decide to descend to Earth, you wouldn't be able to understand what you are seeing.

Here you go again, bastardizing the Bible by spouting off shit you have no idea about. God revealed himself to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden...quite a few times. It is in the Book of Genesis. So, you are wrong...again.

Therefore it is not an option, and someone well versed in English will discard that meaning of the word Maybe

English is my first language mother fucker. It is your second. I did not discard the meaning of that word. I require a source for your doubt regarding the statement in question. Or, you can retract and conceed.

I am a coward for not insulting you?

Nope, I called you a pussy for not challenging me. Are you acusing me of being an internet bully now?

And according to those same rules if you decide to answer by opening a possibility, you are required to back it up with a source!

...some people are too dumb and insensitive to understand the implications of talking with someone who believes differently from you.

I could care less what you believe you fucking twat. When you attempt to pass off statements as facts and then refuse to back up those facts with a reliable source (hell, I'll even accept Wikipedia from you) I will mock you.

Nothing about the second half?

Nope. It is irrelevant to the point at hand.

In which way is it bullshit? Oh tell me please, I want to know so badly how I am wrong.

Oh for Christ's sake...I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through the various relevant Biblical passages to call out your mistakes. Fucking do your own research BEFORE you post such moronic dribble. I am growin weary of this stupid game you are playing.

I've already provided my arguments for this case several times. You are free to read the thread before posting.

And everyone here has called bullshit on them. Yet, you keep INSISTING that you are right. Go figure.

Oh, let's make bullet points.

Let's not. You defended the position by affirming justification "as a Chritian would". So I am asking you to go further and continue defending that position by asking this question:

"Pray tell, what the fuck SIN has an 8 year old commited that is so evil that being assraped by her stepfather is fucking justified as a test of faith?"

Either answer the fucking question or conceed that no amount of apologetics will give a favorable postition to "GOD".

You start the second situation by saying your sister has financial problems.

Correct, I did. But, I only contributed it God's will to their car breaking down. That's it. You tried to state that I said it was also God's will that she had financial problems. I didn't.

Avoiding flamewars is part of the rules.

HAHA, you've not lurked for very long around these parts here have you? You have NO idea what a flamewar here is. Insulting you is allowed.

Thank you for stating your personal opinion.

Can you be anymore stupid? That is not my personal opinion. That is a statement of observation. I've explained this many, many times.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Whoah, a post not crammed with insults. Umm.. thanks?

He gets to repent because the Bible, which you stipulated is completely correct as part of Christianity, says he does. Anything aside from a mortal sin (which does not include murder) can be repented if the person genuinely wishes it. Yes, it is messed up. Yes, it is hard for Christianity to explain it. But you stipulated Christianity was completely correct. Therefore, Christianity is wrong to posit condemning the victim while allowing the perpetrator to enter paradise.

Isn't it up to God to decide whether the murderer does actually repent or not? I mean, the Bible just states that there is a possibility to do so.
I stipulated that Christianity was completely correct for the purposes of the exercise only. If it is proved to be contradictory in this case, then there is either a mistake in it, which puts the entire infallibility of God's word in question, or it's a mistake in translation/transcription, in which case only the human side to the Bible is put into question.

I'm surprised that murder is not a mortal sin. I didn't know that. Maybe it is to allow soldiers and the police to function with full force?

Murder is a sin, but not an unforgivable one. The only unforgivable I am aware of is suicide and "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit." Which makes things worse, since God ranks blaspheming against his spirit a more serious crime than murder, rape, genocide etc. Again, that points to him being a psychopath/sociopath/megalomaniac/whatever the correct pyschopathology is.

I can happily accept the existence of a harsh test. What I do not accept is the existence of an unfair, pointless, unevenly applied and cruel test.

How can we test your feelings of jealousy if there never was something to be jealous of? How can we see how you deal with those more powerful or weaker than you if everyone has the same strength? How can we know if you will thank God for your lucky life or feel humbled by your poor luck ? I think the inequality is part of the 'harshness' of the test.

I did not mention jealousy, once again you are replying to a point I did not make. Stop doing that. As for the point itself, why must we be tested? Why must we justify our existence to our alleged creator? You don't seem to get that God testing us is not an essential element of life.

And I got to "God being the origin of harm" because God created the whole damn universe and is responsible for all fucking things. This really is not hard to understand. Even if he is not responsible for all things (which the Bible, assumed by you to be correct as part of Christianity, says he is) it still does not excuse the "willingly chose not to act" part, which is what makes him immoral. If you've already answered this it will cost you nothing to copy and paste your answer, because I haven't seen one.

God is not responsible for the actions of evil men and women, from which most complaints against god arise. You can blame him for not making a test where humans are shielded from negative consequences, but you can't say that God is moving the knife or shooting the bullet. Also, it seems than in the Bible, Satan has a sort of physical power to create bad events, so that's another factor.

If God is all-knowing and created all things, then God knew the murderer would kill. He is not shooting the bullet but he started the chain of events. And I can still blame him for willfully not intervening to prevent suffering. Also, Even if Satan is the one causing evil, God created Satan knowing that's exactly what he would do, so God is still ultimately responsible.

And death. Death was my final point, Death is not suffering, and God cannot be a murderer, because he's simply messing with something he created and he owns. Killing for God is simply transporting the soul from Earth to Heaven or Hell. He's taking back the gift of life.
Why is life a gift, you might ask, if we must live on Earth? Because He is giving the person the opportunity to prove him or herself worthy of entering Heaven, and Heaven is perfect enough to warrant saying "Living in Heaven is worth anything".
Also, Humans cannot kill, but God can kill, because a human killing another human means that a human is stealing the life from another creation, which is not his. A human would be 'stealing' life from God. The God however owns the life and can do whatever he wants with it.

So we are God's property and he can do with us what he likes. Does that mean I can do what I like to a dog simply because he's my property? No, it does not. Any owner of anything living has an obligation to care for the life he is responsible for.

Which, incidentally, makes your argument about God not being responsible for the murderer in the example above invalid. If the murderer is God's property, then God is responsible for his actions.

A final comment. Instead of worrying about Heaven or Hell and simply accepting the crappiness of Earth as part of the test, how about we try and improve this world instead? We can try and make the suffering test invalid by sorting it ourselves. In other words, we can do God's job of looking after us for him.

Didn't Jesus make a speech saying how humanity has to be kind to each other, and that if they follow the divine laws then their life on Earth will be relatively easy? Nothing in the Bible stops us from reducing the pain and harshness of our living conditions.

Yet we can't stop plagues or natural disasters from occurring, only mitigate their effects. And since you admitted earlier that such natural events are the work of God, so if we do try and stop them, and actually succeed, we have undone God's will and rendered him fallible once again.

[Formless]

And I suppose you have better things to do on an internet forum? Free will! You can discuss these things with someone else too. I'm being respectful here and not pushing my own beliefs to the forefront and claiming some things are basically wrong, fabricated or illogical, and trying instead to discuss them with you.

Since you now refuse to answer my question about what you believe, and are now acting like you haven't made extraordinary claims about God, Christian Dogma, and the contents of the Bible, I am to take it that you are a troll AND a liar. I am done. All there is to do now is to see how long it takes for the moderators to notice you and your smug shitstained apologetics act. After that, we'll see what happens. Whatever happens, I'm sure a fragile little snowflake like you that can't stand being called something as harmless as "jackass", it won't be pleasant.

[bilateralrope]

Here's a simple yes/no question for you:
Does God:
-Knows your choice, therefore you have no choice, therefore we are all puppets and there is nothing to be mad at and you can just go and sit in a corner waiting for God to decide the rest of your life for you. There is no test in this case.
-Knows only the possibilities, and it is up to you to make the choice, therefore free will exists and there is something to judge.

My position is that, while we have free will, an all knowing god knows us well enough that our actions are predictable.

You are asserting that an all-knowing observer is incompatible with free will among those being observed. Please prove this assertion to be true.

Lets take a simple example:
- Take a healthy vegetarian with no mental problems.
- Stare him for a day or two.
- Have him rescued.
- Have his rescuers offer him one of two meals. One meal is vegetarian, the other isn't.
The vegetarian does have the free will to choose which food to eat. Or to choose to eat nothing. At the same time you know that he will choose the vegetarian meal.

In this case, you've created a situation where only one option is available, which removes the option of choosing freely, and therefore you cannot be judged over the consequences of this.

How is choosing to be a vegetarian is not an act of free will ?

After choosing to be a vegetarian, choosing to eat the vegetarian meal over the meat meal an act of free will.

Now, this assumes that the vegetarian will try and save his life and eat. I don't know if Christianity punishes people for trying to save themselves, if that is what you're implying.

My point has nothing to do with what happens after the choice. My point is that the vegetarian has three choices, and he has the free will to take any of them. At the same time, the choice he will pick is easily predicted by an observer.

If you want to claim that 'free will' is a credible response to 'god is evil', please tell me how the vegetarian doesn't have free will in this scenario. Because, to an all knowing god, all tests will be as easily predictable as the results of this scenario is to us.

He doesn't have free will unless he wants to kill himself, which humans are built to avoid. I think suicide is not allowed in Christianity too...

Maybe. Though hunger strikes show that not eating can be an act of free will, just one that isn't taken without a strong reason.

But, even if you reject starvation as an option, choosing which meal to eat is still an act of free will on the part of the vegetarian.

If you want to convince me that god is moral despite the way he 'tests' his followers, you will need to convince me that it will be moral to perform the scenario I described above.

As far as I know, God is not bound by morals because he can just create a universe where the morals are different in a blink of the eye. That's the power of an entity able to change the rules. And that scenario is actually a moral one, and the rescuers will be rewarded, because they're feeding someone and vegetarians are willfully removing part of God's gifts (meat) on Earth from themselves. I don't believe God created such a thing on Earth only to remove it from us.

You seem to be missing the part where the vegetarian is starved before being offered the meal. That is the immoral part of my scenario.

As for Gods morals, why does God get an exception clause ?

If humans managed to create life of their own, and God decided to kill their creations, that would be murder. If a human decided to kill the creations of God, then that is murder. Guess what? God created us. We can't kill each other but he can do whatever he wants. Thankfully, he is a just God and won't go about killing people randomly. Death, illness, natural disasters abide the laws of physics and probability of which he is ultimately the cause and can influence in special occasions.

Parents create their own children. By your reasoning, this would mean that parents are allowed to then kill their own children because they created them.