Thursday, September 1, 2011

31 Questions Christians Can’t Answer

Josh McDowell’s “Answers to Tough Questions” Is A Joke. These Are the REAL Tough Questions

by Larry Simons
September 1, 2011

With much help from Vincent Bugliosi’s book Divinity of Doubt: The God Question and from a few questions I threw in myself, here is a list of [in my opinion] impossible questions for Christians to answer. They are in no particular order of importance. They are just random questions that I am sure every Christian would ignore.

1. Why hasn’t God intervened on the tyrants throughout history to prevent far worse atrocities than in the Old Testament days in which he did intervene?

2. If God were all-powerful, why wouldn’t he create humans who could appreciate good without having evil to compare it with?

3. If God were all-perfect and all-powerful, why would he do such a poor job and create such an imperfect world with its deadly earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc?

4. If God is all-perfect, how could he, and why would he create such extremely imperfect human beings to occupy this world?

5. Why would God need 122 “constants” to provide life on Earth?
(“constants” are precise scientific conditions in which if altered slightly [like the Earth being just 1% closer to the sun], life on Earth would cease)

6. If God could create the universe by the wave of his hand or the utterance of a command, why not make Earth dependent on nothing to sustain life?

7. Why did Moses write in the third person in the first five books of the Old Testament?

8. How could Moses write about his own death [and beyond] in Deuteronomy 34:10-11?

9. If God is all-knowing, why did God ask Adam where he was and whether he had eaten fruit in Genesis?
(If the answer to this question is “so God could test Adam’s integrity”, why would God not have already known this since he is all-knowing and knows the hearts of man?)

10. Why did God create mankind at all if in Genesis God said he was sorry he created them?

11. Why did God create human beings to have a sinful nature?

12. If God is all-just, how can he possibly punish mankind for what Adam did?

13. If God is all-just, why does he punish/kill massive amounts of people throughout the Bible for the sins of one?

Examples:

*God murdered 70,000 Israelites by inflicting them with disease because one man, David, conducted a census

*God punished Egypt with 10 plagues, which included murdering all male first-born babies because God had a vendetta against Pharaoh [whose heart was hardened by God so that Pharaoh could not release the Israelites even if he wanted to]

*God puts all of mankind to death because of Adam’s sin


14. Why did God feel the need to show mankind his love? And why does he need love returned from sinful, wretched mankind?

15. Why was Jesus’ death on the cross the ONLY way sins could be forgiven?

16. Why can’t God just wave his hand and destroy the devil?

17. How infinite can Jesus’ love be if for those who reject him as being their savior, he consigns them to an everlasting hell?

18. If God is so good, why does he put all of us to death?

19. How can a human being believe he has the capacity to love an imponderable, dream-like abstraction such as God more than his own wife and children?

20. Where did Satan get the power to tempt us into all of our sins?

21. If God chooses to allow the devil to continue to exist, knowing he is going to tempt us into sin, isn’t God making the devil his agent?

22. How can God be good when he nearly always turns down the praying party when they need him the most?

23. Why do people pray to God after a tragedy like 9/11 or Katrina when they are praying to the party that caused or allowed it?

24. If faith in God is worth anything, shouldn’t he want us to reach him through our reason rather than unthinkingly through blind faith?

25. Why did the prophet Isaiah [in Isaiah 7:14], in his foretelling of the birth of Jesus, use the Hebrew word “almah”, which means “young woman” and not use the word “betulah”, which means “virgin”, when describing Jesus’ mother?

26. Why did God contradict himself in Genesis by creating the sun and moon on the fourth day [Gen. 1: 16-19] to provide light during the day and night when he already created light for the day and night on the first day [Gen. 1: 3-5]?

27. If God is all-knowing, why did he not know until the very moment in which Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac that Abraham feared God?

28. Why does the Bible say, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], “love is not jealous” [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and “God is jealous” [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously].

29. Why did God make Noah build a Titanic-sized boat when God could have simply spoken a boat into existence?

30. According to Noah’s genealogy in Genesis chapter 5, Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah, died the exact same year of the flood. Was Methuselah killed in the flood? If so, why would Noah be so faithful to a god that murdered his grandfather? Was Methuselah evil [to therefore to have been included in the evil population God killed in the flood]?

31. Why is it that God is allowed to possess a characteristic [jealousy, in Deut. 4:24 and Exodus 20:5] that the Bible itself denounces in Proverbs 27:4 and 14:30?

178 comments:

Papa Giorgio said...

For all reading this response – as you go through and read [esp. the 2nd] responses, keep in mind Aristotl’e dictum, which I talk about here. In fact, I will emphasize some of the text in the second response that fits well with this legal standard that pre-dates Christ.

Since your “’Real Truth’ Online” blog has as this post heading, “31 Questions Christians Can’t Answer,” and you mentioned HERE that 28, 30, and 31 are your favs… I figured I would mention that all the following responses for #31 are from Christians, thus undermining your blog title and your post title. Much like the other strain, you seem to jump the gun here and I am sure allow some weird pride to cloud your mind – like at the other post – and never admit coming to the table wrongly.

=========
QUOTE
=========
EXODUS 20:5a — Does God get jealous?

PROBLEM: The Bible not only says here that God is a "jealous God," but it also declares His very "name is Jealous" (Ex. 34:14). On the other hand, jealousy is a sin. But, if God is absolutely holy, then how can He be jealous?

SOLUTION: God is jealous in the good sense of the word, namely, He is jealous for the love and devotion of His people (cf. Ex. 20:5). Paul spoke of a "godly jealousy" (2 Cor. 11:2). The verses on God's jealousy are all in the context of idolatry. Like any true lover, God is jealous when anyone or anything else steals the devotion of His beloved.

Human jealousy is often coveting what does not belong to us. However, God's jealousy is protecting what does belong to Him, namely His own supremacy. It is not a sin for God to claim allegiance of His creatures because He is the Creator. And He knows that it is best for them not to make an ultimate commitment to what is less than ultimate (idols). Only an ultimate commitment to what is really ultimate will ultimately satisfy the human heart. God is jealous to protect this.

(Geilser and Howe, When Critics Ask)

Papa Giorgio said...

=========
QUOTE
=========
20:4-6 Is Art Forbidden?
Was this second of the Ten Commandments intended to stifle any or all forms of artistic expression in Israel and even in our own day? Is the depiction of any of God's creatures or any aspect of his creation strictly forbidden, whether it be by means of oil painting or sculpting in wood, stone, clay, silver or gold?
Does this text also teach that children may be expected to pay for the sins of their evil parents, regardless of their own lifestyle or personal ethics and practices? And are some children shown great love and kindness simply because one of their relatives loved God and kept his commandments?

Exodus 20:3, generally regarded as the first commandment, deals with the internal worship of God. The third commandment, Exodus 20:7, deals with the spoken worship of God and the proper use of the tongue. Exodus 20:4-6 has to do with the external worship of God. Covered in this second commandment are both the mode of worshiping God (Ex 20:4-5) and the penalty for failing to do so (Ex 20:5-6). The prohibition is clearly aimed at the sin of idolatry.

The Old Testament is replete with synonyms and words for idols; in fact, it has fourteen such words. The word idol used here refers to an actual statue, while the word form or resemblance applies to real or imagined pictorial representations of any sort.

But neither term is used in this context to speak to the question of what is or is not legitimate artistic expression. The context addresses the matter of worship—and only that. It is wrong to use the second commandment to forbid or curtail the visual or plastic arts.

The commandment speaks instead to the issue of using images that would, in effect, rival God. The actual proscription is "You shall not bow down to them or worship them." Here two expressions (bow down and worship), in a figure of speech called hendiadys, are used to convey a single idea: do not use images to offer religious worship to the living God. The worshiper must not compromise that worship by having a concrete center for that worship. Such a practice would be too close to what the heathen were doing.

This prohibition must be viewed against the background of Egyptian religion, for Israel had just emerged from its bondage in Egypt. [historical background to the situation] Egyptian worship was directed toward the heavenly bodies, especially the sun, and such creatures as birds, cows, frogs and fish. Thus what is forbidden is not the making of images of fish, birds, bulls or the like. Instead, it is forbidden to make an image of God with a view to using it as part of one's worship. Such substitutes would only steal hearts and minds away from the true worship of God.

…(CON’T)…

Papa Giorgio said...

Should further support be needed for this interpretation, one need only remember what the Lord commanded with regard to the tabernacle. Under divine direction, all sorts of representations of the created order were included in this structure and its accouterments. [allowing the text in question to be read as a whole and allowing definitions in its own pages] Had all such representations been wrong, this would not have been commanded.

No, this commandment does not prohibit artistic representations of the created world. It does, however, prohibit the use of images that call our hearts and minds away from focusing on the one true and living God, who is spirit and not like any of the shapes and forms that he created.

The penalty or sanction that follows the second commandment's proscription begins with the magisterial reminder that "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God." God's jealousy does not involve being suspicious or wrongfully envious of the success of others, or even mistrusting. When used of God, the word jealous refers to that quality of his character that demands exclusive devotion to all that is just, right and fair. [allowing the above to be synced with religious culture and tradition] Jealousy is the anger that God directs against all that opposes him. It is also the energy he expends in vindicating those who believe in the rightness of this quality and of his name.

God's jealousy, or his zeal, is that emotion by which he is stirred up against whatever hinders the enjoyment of what he loves and desires. Therefore, the greatest insult against God's love for us is to slight that love and to choose instead a lesser or baser love. That is idolatry. It is a spiritual form of adultery that results in neglect, substitution and finally contempt for the public and private worship of God.

(Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible)

Larry said...

LOL! I'm pissing my pants!

You said in the PROBLEM "jealousy is a sin"

THEN you said in the SOLUTION "God is jealous in the good sense of the word".

So, you are admitting that SIN is GOOD?

LOL!

"Human jealousy is often coveting what does not belong to us. However, God's jealousy is protecting what does belong to Him, namely His own supremacy."

If the issue was just OWNERSHIP, then it's not jealousy.

You said "He is jealous for the love and devotion of His people"

Oh, you mean the same people he constantly MURDERS in the Bible? The same people he calls evil and wretched and sinners?

Why does God NEED devotion? Is he that vain??

Let me also add that NONE of your 3 posts were responses from YOU. They were from OTHERS---more copy and paste jobs---and NONE of the 3 posts ANSWERED the question.

I will also add that you ONLY acknowledged [but didn't answer] #31. There's 30 left.

Papa Giorgio said...

Of course, just like you misreading other positions stated in previous conversations, you isolate, misread, and misapply what you read in short paragraphs. Your life must be a mess?! Oh, you may apply this standard only to dealing with Christianity but not writing papers, reports, or your daily life. Maybe you apply it to politics and history as well? Which may be why you like Ron Paul. At any rate, here is the sentence that qualifies what you said:

God's jealousy does not involve being suspicious or wrongfully envious of the success of others, or even mistrusting. When used of God, the word jealous refers to that quality of his character that demands exclusive devotion to all that is just, right and fair.

(I guess I should LOL as well?) Maybe you should define God or understand the theistic viewpoint of God in order to talk about that which you deny? I will post some basic theistic thinking about God:

Papa Giorgio said...

When Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1915 and started applying it to the universe as a whole, he was shocked to discover it didn't allow for a static universe. According to his equations, the universe should either be exploding or imploding. In order to make the universe static, he had to fudge his equations by putting in a facto that would hold the universe steady.

In the 1920's, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and the Belgium astronomer George Lemaitre were able to develop models based on Einstein's theory. They predicted the universe was expanding. Of course, this meant that if you went backward in time, the universe would go back to a single origin before which it didn't exist. Astronomer Fred Hoyle derisively called this the Big Bang -- and the name stuck!

Starting in the 1920's, scientists began to find empirical evidence that supported these purely mathematical models. For instance, in 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the light coming to us from distant galaxies appears redder than it should be, and this is a universal feature of galaxies in all parts of the sky. Hubble explained this red shift as being due to the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us. He concluded that the universe is literally flying apart at enormous velocities. Hubble's astronomical observations were the first empirical confirmation of the predictions by Friedman and Lemaitre.

Then in the 1940's, George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang really happened, then the background temperature of the universe should be just a few degrees above absolute zero. He said this would be a relic from a very early stage of the universe. Sure enough, in 1965, two scientists accidentally discovered the universe's background radiation -- and it was only about 3.7 degrees above absolute zero. There's no explanation for this apart from the fact that it is a vestige of a very early and a very dense state of the universe, which was predicted by the Big Bang model.

The third main piece of the evidence for the Big Bang is the origin of light elements. Heavy elements, like carbon and iron, are synthesized in the interior of stars and then exploded through supernova into space. But the very, very light elements, like deuterium and helium, cannot have been synthesized in the interior of the stars, because you would need an even more powerful furnace to create them. These elements must have been forged in the furnace of the Big Bang itself at temperatures that were billions of degrees. There's no other explanation.

So predictions about the Big Bang have been consistently verified by the scientific data. Moreover, they have been corroborated by the failure of every attempt to falsify them by alternative models. Unquestionably, the Big Bang model has impressive scientific credentials . . . . Up to this time, it was taken for granted that the universe as a whole was a static, eternally existing object . . . . At the time an agnostic, American astronomer Robert Jastrow was forced to concede that although details may differ, “the essential element in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy”.... Einstein admitted the idea of the expanding universe “irritates me” (presumably, said one prominent scientist, “because of its theological implications”).[1]

________________________________________
[1] Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Towards God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 105-106, 112.

Papa Giorgio said...

We can tell even more than this using rational thought:

What properties must such a cause of the universe possess? By the very nature of the case, the cause of space and time must transcend space and time and therefore exist timelessly and nonspatially (at least without the universe). This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since anything that is timeless must also be unchanging, and anything that is changeless must be nonphysical and immaterial (since material things are constantly changing at the molecular and atomic levels). Such an entity must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any prior causal conditions, since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Ockham's razor—the principle which states that we should not multiply causes beyond necessity—will shave away any other causes, since only one cause is required to explain the effect. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, since it created the universe without any material cause.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent first cause is plausibly personal. Two reasons can be given for this conclusion. First, the personhood of the first cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality. The only entities which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, like numbers. But abstract objects don't stand in causal relations. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be an unembodied mind.

Second, this same conclusion is implied by the origin of an effect with a beginning from a beginningless cause. We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature of the case, that cause cannot have either a beginning of its existence or any prior cause. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect also eternal? How can the cause exist without the effect?

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but freely create the world in time. By exercising his causal power, he brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist? So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

We may therefore conclude that a personal Creator of the universe exists, who is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful.

________________________________________
[1] William Lane Craig and Chad Meister, God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 16-17.

Anonymous said...

papa johns looks more and more like a jackass, this guy is the reason why people hate christians. hes a fn joke. hes debunked and refuted himself in his own explanation of his own side. another person proving you right again. keep up the great work larry.

Papa Giorgio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papa Giorgio said...

I realize the internet somehow causes one to throw away etiquette and how they treat people. But you have to imagine that people are out having a beer, talking over politics and religion. -- For instance, I think Ron Paul is one of the worse Reps in Congress right now. I get emotional when i think that he believes America planned the attacks on the Twin Towers. However, when I am out talking about these issues with people in a public setting (which is what the internet is), one should treat others like they would bumping into a person and discussing issues in the line at a grocery store. When you start to name call and cuss, all you are doing is showing your lack of argument and appeal to ad-hominem attacks. Which really negates any argument you may have been trying to get across.

Just thought I would try and raise the level of dialogue here... or you guys can keep lowering it and only you guys will visit Real Truth and others of a different stripe will stay away. in other words, do you want mini-me's around as a sounding board... or do you want to allow your ideas out in the real world to see if they stand up to the test of time?

Much Thought, Papa Giorgio.

Larry said...

Papa, I'm not reading your giant copy and paste jobs anymore. All they do is show that YOU can't address questions and you need OTHERS for your responses. The also obfuscate my questions.

You STILL have not answered question #31 yet---and you havent even ATTEMPTED the other 30.

This is one I like alot:

28. Why does the Bible say, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], “love is not jealous” [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and “God is jealous” [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously].

Naturally, you will reply with a giant copy and paste job from some book and even then STILL won't answer the question. If you do, I won't read it. This is an argument between me and YOU, not me and all your books.

By the way, care to give ANY reasons why you think Ron Paul is the worst rep. in Congress? I'm all ears.

Larry said...

And by the way, care to explain why you think our government was NOT involved in 9/11---when there is MASSIVE evidence they were? And there are so many holes in the official story, unanswered questions and cover-ups, it's not even something that takes heavy investigation to discover? Give me just TWO reasons why you believe our government was not involved---so I can shoot them down quicker than Dick Cheney can shoot a guy in the face.

NO COPY AND PASTE JOBS in your response or I will NOT read it--and I will also conclude that you CANNOT answer my question.

Anonymous said...

another long dialogue written that says nothing nor does it answer the question. and you write. what a joke. probably kids books. he gives his views but nothing to back it up. go figure.

rob said...

larry, this guy is such a poor representative of god and a christian that the only words he'll hear from god is begone from me you worker of iniquity for i never knew you. tell papa john to just answer the question without all his roundabout bullshit.

Papa Giorgio said...

Rob, what question?

There are about 40 herein. I fully rebuked one of his favorite ones... do you want me to refute all 31? I will quit my job and work on this just for you.

Larry said...

"There are about 40 herein. I fully rebuked one of his favorite ones"

Actually YOU didn't debunk ANYTHING Papa John. You posted portions of books from OTHERS, and it STILL didnt address the question.

NO MORE copy and paste jobs. I want the answers from YOU.

And, yes, I would actually like you to debunk each one. I already know you won't, but I wanted to have everyone see me ASKING, so they could also see you IGNORE it.

Papa Giorgio said...

Actually Larry, I added to the defense of the 2 Kings verse. Calling the prophet a "baldhead" and knowing the manners and customs in what the holy men of Israel wear, and pointing to the fact that this large crowds only way to know he was bald was to have already attacked him, is all me. Yes... what the priesthood wears is common knowledge, but pointing out that in order for the crowd to have known he was bald would mean they would have to of removed his cultural priesthood wear is all me Larry. No copy and paste. Plus, what I pointed out -- simply -- was that you had 31 questions Christians cannot answer. You said 28, 30, and 31 were your favs. All I did was point out that Christians have answered them... you just haven't bothered to look up what you reject. Here is a great example I give:

I often bump into people that have watched some or most of the following "documentaries"

==============
I own and have watched (some of the below are shown in high-school classes):
• Bowling for Columbine
• Roger and Me
• Fahrenheit 9/11
• Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
• Sicko
• An Inconvenient Truth
• Loose Change
• Zeitgeist
• Religulouse
• The God Who Wasn’t There
• Super-Size Me

But rarely do I meet someone of the opposite persuasion from me that have watched any of the following (I own and have watched):
• Celsius41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain Dies
• FahrenHYPE 9/11
• Michael & Me
• Michael Moore Hates America
• Bullshit! Fifth Season... Read More (where they tear apart the Wal-Mart documentary)
• Indoctrinate U
• Mine Your Own Business
• Screw Loose Change
• 3-part response to Zeitgeist
• Fat-Head

==============


While you consider yourself an harbinger of truth, to bring truth you must know what is false. What is false not by edict, but by allowing for some argument that applies to all person (atheism to theism). I suggest you read one book Larry. Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Just take some time to explore the other side a bit.

rob said...

hey papa john , you clearly havent debunked nor refuted any of larrys questions. why did you remove your comment? prove larry right in your own post? lol larry here your answer to the noah question. he went ace hardware. remember ace is the place. lol.lol. now jack hole use a least a little common sense here and see through your bullshit like we have. get over yourself convict. so next time answer without all the round about crap k?

Anonymous said...

rob a convict got a job. wow they must need a tax write off. lol.lol..lol.. yeah dickwad. answer them all. but first just answer one. what a piss poor excuse for religion. and by the way your stuff on 9/11 have been debunked and refuted by loose change, david ray griffin, jim marrs, and 9-11 the great illusion.

Larry said...

"but pointing out that in order for the crowd to have known he was bald would mean they would have to of removed his cultural priesthood wear"

This is now like th FIFTH TIME Ive asked this question---and you REFUSE to answer it:

How did what the youths did warrant DEATH???????

You have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER ANSWERED THAT.

Nor have you even ATTEMPTED to answer the other 30.

Answer this one:

28. Why does the Bible say, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], “love is not jealous” [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and “God is jealous” [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously].

Papa Giorgio said...

Larry, I have already pointed out that Christians have answered what you said they could not: http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/598

All this has already been answered. Death, from knowing that there was a violent crowd well over 42 people from a cultic city that killed infants by placing them alive in red-hot (stoked fire underneath them) brass outstretched hands of a statue laid their hands on the prophet deserves death. It would be similar to our President being attacked by a riotess mob and the Secret Service killing a bunch of them to protect the president.

This was the leader of Israel being assaulted, God had every right to make sure he survived and to kill baby killers. Simple

Larry said...

"All this has already been answered. Death, from knowing that there was a violent crowd well over 42 people from a cultic city that killed infants by placing them alive in red-hot (stoked fire underneath them) brass outstretched hands of a statue laid their hands on the prophet deserves death. It would be similar to our President being attacked by a riotess mob and the Secret Service killing a bunch of them to protect the president.

This was the leader of Israel being assaulted, God had every right to make sure he survived and to kill baby killers. Simple"

There are so many glaring errors in your above post--let me just point out the top ones that came to me within 10 seconds of reading your insane bunk:

1. The text of 2 Kings does NOT MENTION that it was a "cultic city that killed infants by placing them alive in red-hot (stoked fire underneath them)"

2. "This was the leader of Israel being assaulted"???? Name calling is ASSAULT? They called him a fucking BALD HEAD. How is THAT assault? So, if I call you a mindless douchebag, I'm "assaulting" you?

3. You say there was bay-killing going on [despite the fact that the text doesn't mention it]. If that's true, why didn't God STOP the babykilling? He's all powerful and all-knowing CORRECT? That means, he had to know IN ADVANCE [since he's all-knowing] the babies were going to die by these people, and did NOTHING to stop them.

But instead, where God DID choose to lift a finger and intervene was to brutally MURDER more people as a result of HIM not intervening in the first place. Ironic, your explanation only ADDS to the monstrous nature of God. He KNOWS IN ADVANCE babies will be murdered---and he ALLOWS it, BUT when someone is called a "BALD HEAD"----well, that was the last fucking straw for God!! He HAD to put an end to name-calling, didn't he? Babies being murdered---nahhhhh, NO BIG DEAL....but namecalling???? Those sons of bitches had to pay for that, didn't they??

You're fucking INSANE.

4. "God had every right to make sure he survived and to kill baby killers. Simple"

Why would God be against babykilling ANYWAY? Didn't he completely annihilate the entire earth's population in the great flood [except for 8 people]? Stands to reason if the ENTIRE Earth's population was wiped from existence by God, there HAD to be BABIES among that population---or do you want me to believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH at the time of the flood was an evil sinner---INCLUDING BABIES, and over the age of 10?

Are you telling me there was NO BABIES wiped out in the flood? Are you really saying that? If the answer is "yes" and the answer HAS to be "yes"-----then God is A-OK with babykilling, since he was history's first babykiller.

5. "It would be similar to our President being attacked by a riotess mob and the Secret Service killing a bunch of them to protect the president."

EXCEPT for the fact that God is all-knowing and all-powerful and the Secret Service is NOT. Ironic you picked this idiotic analogy, because IF the Secret Service WAS all-powerful and all-knowing, THEY WOULD HAVE intervened to stop the Prez from being attacked BEFORE it happened. But God----BEING ALL-POWERFUL AND ALL-KNOWING, does NOT use his all-knowing and all-powerful capabilities and intervene on the babykilling to begin with, so that God would NOT HAVE TO kill MORE people as a result.

It's simple why God doesn't stop atrocities and crimes. He loves death and loves killing. He DOES NOTHING to stop babykilling, but he DOES intervene to KILL MORE PEOPLE.

My entire post will be IGNORED by you, because you can't refute one word of what I just said.

Larry said...

Now, since I debunked your horse shit on several levels now, that constitutes NOT providing an answer to my question. So, when are you going to answer the 31 questions?

Ive posted THIS several times now:

28. Why does the Bible say, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], “love is not jealous” [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and “God is jealous” [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously].

You IGNORE it EVERY SINGLE TIME. I'm waiting for an answer. Didn't you say you'd answer ALL of them???

I want YOUR answers, not some LINK and not some 3 paragraph copy-and-paste job from someone's website or book. I want STRAIGHT ANSWERS from YOU.

Larry said...

You also IGNORED this a few days back:

"You said in the PROBLEM "jealousy is a sin"

THEN you said in the SOLUTION "God is jealous in the good sense of the word".

So, you are admitting that SIN is GOOD?"

You said that jealousy is a SIN and that God is jealous "in the good sense". So, you ADMIT that not only is sin GOOD, but that GOD is a sinner??? CORRECT?

Ya fucking LOON.

Anonymous said...

i have the answer to question 30. noah got the lumber and the nails from ace hardware. remember ace is the place. by the way papa dork is schooled again. larry has won hands down.

rob said...

larry, papa dork hasnt come back, go figure. another fraud what a pile of shit.

Larry said...

How could he possibly refute the fact that God could have saved babies from being killed but he chose NOT to? BUT he DID intevene on someone being called NAMES.

There's no defense of God for this, and Papa Guido Sarducci knows it.

Larry said...

Papa has left the building!!!

LOL

Anonymous said...

Q. If God is all-perfect, how could he, and why would he create such extremely imperfect human beings to occupy this world?



A. My answer is that God created us perfectly, innocently, and without fault. On the sixth day of creation in Genesis 1:31 it says, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.” God who is holly and perfect would not call something imperfect good, especially if He were going to set that creation in this world to occupy it. So if God said everything was good, then it was all good.
Now I am not saying the world is perfect, I’m saying it was perfect. How did it become imperfect? Well the answer is pretty simple. Lucifer, also known as Satin and the devil comes in at this part. Before all the 7 days were over Lucifer was perfect because God said all His creation was good. So Lucifer must have fallen into his pride and jealousy after these 7 days. Once he did that, he temped Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. God had said if they ever ate the forbidden fruit they would surly die. I do not believe He meant dying literally, but a spiritual death; meaning that after you die (literally) you have two places to go: Heaven (life) or hell (death). You would go to hell (death) because of the decision Adam and Eve made. But God loves us so much that He sent His only Son to die for us, so there would be a path to go to that lovely place of life, called Heaven.
So God being all-perfect, didn’t create extremely imperfect human beings to occupy this world. No, on the contrary! God made us perfect but Satan came to ruin it all. That’s why now we are so wretched, horrible and imperfect. But there’s always a way out of this if you just believe in Him, Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

Well i ask question 28 on yahoo questions got 12 anwsers 2 from top contributers, some anwsers were a page long some said that i shouldnt try to find bad in the bible. But not 1 of them qhere able to anwser how it isnt condratictory. Good question!

Papa Giorgio said...

"...comments that are childish and only meant for purposes of provocation may be deleted."

Whomever anonymous is trying to converse with Larry in any cogent manner, read the "forum rules" above this box (also a portion of which is included) and then read a few comments I have included from Larry, below:

★ LOL! I'm pissing my pants!
★ (one of Larry's contributors) papa johns looks more and more like a jackass
★ You're fucking INSANE.
★ Ya fucking LOON.

There are better sites to have honest, reasonable, conversations with skeptics than this one. Which is why this blog is misnamed Real Truth Online, which should be Real Fallacious Arguments Online (Ad Hominem and Straw-Men).

rob said...

papa john has made himself and his buddies look a fool yet again.

Real Truth Online said...

Exactly what's your point Papa John? I never deleted a comment from YOU, did I? Me calling you a loon or any other name doesn't fall into the category of provocation. I noticed how you "forgot" to include another line from my disclaimer "You may even name-call and be hostile, but please, back up your words with valid opposing remarks."

Ahhhh, just conveniently left that out huh?

I also noticed that not ONCE have you answered a single question in my list, nor will you.

Even WHEN you have commented, it's never coming straight from you. Your posts are nothing but copy and paste portions of OTHER peoples words, and even then, it still doesn't answer the questions I have posted here.

I laughed when you said this:

"There are better sites to have honest, reasonable, conversations with skeptics than this one."

And yet you keep coming here. Why is that?? Infatuated with my site? Odd that you're so infatuated, yet you keep getting destroyed by us agnostics. That is quite funny.

Just wondering WHEN you will ever answer just ONE of these 31 questions.

Anonymous said...

I am going to attempt to answer one of your questions although it looks like you really have no intention of understanding the bible or God. Am i wrong? Keep in mind though that no one completely understands God. Our intelligence compared to him are like ants compared to us. Ants will never understand us just like we will never completely understand everything about God.


"If God is all-perfect, how could he, and why would he create such extremely imperfect human beings to occupy this world?"

God created us to have free will and make our own decisions and since we make our own decisions we chose to be sinners (imperfect).

God did not create us to be robots. He gave us the choice to love him. If he created us with no free will we would pretty much be robots because we would be doing everything he says and programmed us to do. So my question to you is..
Would it really be love if you programmed someone to love you and they had no choice?

Real Truth Online said...

"God created us to have free will and make our own decisions and since we make our own decisions we chose to be sinners (imperfect)."

Bunk. There are multiple examples in the Bible of God NOT giving us free will.

Here are only a few:

Romans 9:18 “God chooses to make some people refuse to listen”

Exodus 4:21, 7:3 “I will make Pharaoh stubborn so he will not let the people go”

Isaiah 63:17 “Why, Lord, dost thou cause us to stray from they ways?”

Romans 11:32 “God consigns all men to disobedience so he may have mercy on them”

God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart is the most classic example of the lack of free will. God hardened his heart so that he COULD NOT free the Israelites, so that God could inflict punishment on the Egyptians. That story alone shows that God lacks wisdom, being just and foreknowledge. It also shows that he loves torture [probably why so many Christians liked George Bush and supported torture] and loves death.

Anonymous said...

first of all you are taking the verses out of context.
second of all the free will we have is to either obey and love God or not to. third of all Romans 9: 18 is

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

this means God places mercy on those he chooses to place mercy on (for those that obey him) and if you read the previous verses you can seeing pharoh already CHOSE to harden his own heart and God then took it a step further.

Anonymous said...

I stumbled across this "discussion" from a random facebook post. My question here is if you so firmly believe that god does not exist, then why ask questions about it? What difference does it make? The only reason to ask a question is that you actually want an answer. I would figure that even if all the questions above were answered with good answers that were direct and made sense that those that don't believe in god would still not believe. Never underestimate the power of biased opinions. No one from either side is going to listen to the arguments of the other. Discussions like this only work to affirm one's personal beliefs. The more you argue your point, the more you believe it. But seriously, if you don't believe in god or the possibility of god, why the hell would you waste so much time with this shit? All I see here is a bunch of ego stroking. Everyone is trying to prove that they are right and anyone who opposes it is wrong. I will say this for the christians, at least they can keep it polite. Resorting to insults is a sign of a weak mind. But hey, thats just my opinion. Feel free to refute my opinion all you like, it won't get you anywhere and it will simply be a further waste of time. Larry and this blog seem to be on a mission to prove to the world that god doesn't exist. Let them try. It is a waste of time because no matter what arguments you make, no matter how sound the logic, people will still believe. Pappa Giorgio and the anonymous are trying to show Larry and the blog the error in their ways and bring them to the light. Let them try. It is a waste of time and no matter how much you pray for them, they will never believe.

There is only one thing that can be said for sure. I know why the christians are here. They have a purpose. They believe in something that they love and want to share out of a desire to help other people better their lives. I don't know why the others are here. They believe in nothing so why are they wasting their time with a lost cause? Why ask questions that you don't actually want the answers to? Or do you want the answers? Do you actually want someone to answer the questions? Or do you just want to entertain yourselves by insulting people that are operating out of a desire to do good? Why the hell are you wasting your time questioning religion of any type if you don't care? What the hell difference is it going to make in your life? You are asking these questions because you are afraid that your wrong and you are afraid of death. If there is no god, no life after death, no eternal consequences, then you have nothing to be afraid of. You have nothing to live for. The reason why is because once you die there will be nothing. You can do what ever the fuck you want. Doesn't make a difference because there will be no consequences outside of this life. Go to jail? No problem, kill yourself. What difference does it make. Once dead you will have no memories, no feeling, no pain, no fear. You will cease to exist. That taken into consideration, you have no reason to have any morals whatsoever. You're on your way there as demonstrated by the rudeness displayed by the responses to people trying to make a civilized debate about the issue. Take it a step further. Do whatever you want, whenever you want. Because life does not matter. As I said when you die, there will be nothing. Escape from your troubles is always just a gun shot to the dead, a blade to the wrist, or a bottle of pills away. Shit, save yourself the trouble and end it now. Then you won't have to waste any more time refuting the crazy christian people. But first, don't forget to comment on my post with adequate insults and jibes. You gotta make sure you leave a lasting impression for the people that will be left behind to continue wasting their time.

Real Truth Online said...


"if you so firmly believe that god does not exist, then why ask questions about it? What difference does it make?"

Where does it say anywhere that I say god does not exist?

"I would figure that even if all the questions above were answered with good answers that were direct and made sense that those that don't believe in god would still not believe."

That's a cop-out reply. Because what you're actually saying is, is that you AGREE that these questions are hard/impossible to answer, and yet you still believe the Bible, yet you offer no reason WHY, so you resort to the old tiresome "if all the questions were answered, people still won't believe" crapola, so you can justify believing in fairy tales.

"No one from either side is going to listen to the arguments of the other."

Actually not true. I'm all ears. It's ironic that you make the claim that IF you presented arguments, no one would listen anyway, yet you refuse to offer arguments! LOL. It's like you're saying, "Believe the Bible, don't question it, but if you do, it's pointless to argue about it because both sides will just go on believing what they want to anyway"------while, ironically, you do not answer ONE question I posted.

"Discussions like this only work to affirm one's personal beliefs. The more you argue your point, the more you believe it."

No, what affirms my beliefs is the fact that my article is titled, "31 Questions Christians Can't Answer", and you, by NOT answering one of them, are proving my point.

"But seriously, if you don't believe in god or the possibility of god, why the hell would you waste so much time with this shit?"

I have a much BETTER question:

Why waste time on MY article implying that the Bible is true when you're doing EXACTLY what my article says you can't do....ANSWER any of these questions?

"All I see here is a bunch of ego stroking."

There would be no ego of mine to stroke if you actually answered ONE of these questions and showed me in the Bible where the answer to any of these questions are. If you refuted one of my points, that would actually make me happy, because my site is about the TRUTH. The very reason this article was posted was because of people like YOU that claim your belief is true, but yet REFUSE to offer one credible shred of evidence it is.

Real Truth Online said...

"Everyone is trying to prove that they are right and anyone who opposes it is wrong."

LOL, YOU obviously oppose my article, and you haven't disproved one thing I said. What exactly is the point of your post? So far it's been to solidify my claims.

"I will say this for the christians, at least they can keep it polite. Resorting to insults is a sign of a weak mind."

LOL, you're joking right? Christians keep it polite? Was the crusades polite? Was the countless other wars they have started in the name of religion polite? Pastor Steve Anderson [who I do stories about on my site], who said he wishes Obama would die is polite? Pat Robertson, who says something despicable every time he opens his mouth, is polite? Really? For every impolite word I say about religion, I could give you 100 examples of Christians acting like barbarians.

"But hey, thats just my opinion. Feel free to refute my opinion all you like, it won't get you anywhere and it will simply be a further waste of time."

No need to refute you. By you failing to even attempting to answer any of my questions in my story, you refuted yourself.

"Larry and this blog seem to be on a mission to prove to the world that god doesn't exist."

A weak mind is assuming an article says one thing when it actually says another. Somehow, when you read the title to my story, you assumed I was saying god doesnt exist. BUT you won't read those words anywhere in my story. You didn't even READ the story, did you?

"Let them try. It is a waste of time because no matter what arguments you make, no matter how sound the logic, people will still believe."

People believe a lone nut killed JFK too. People believe Elvis and bigfoot share an apartment in Kalamazoo Michigan too. Does simply BELIEVING in something make it true? You called my mind "weak", but the real definition to a weak mind is believing something blindly, without proof----and you believe the Bible, without a shred of evidence. And the fact that you REFUSE to even attempt to answer any of these 31 questions solidifies my stance. I made a claim in my story that Christians can't answer any of them, and so far I'm right because no one in this thread has.

"Pappa Giorgio and the anonymous are trying to show Larry and the blog the error in their ways and bring them to the light. Let them try. It is a waste of time and no matter how much you pray for them, they will never believe."

You're right, because they AND you refuse to answer these questions.

Real Truth Online said...

"There is only one thing that can be said for sure. I know why the christians are here. They have a purpose. They believe in something that they love and want to share out of a desire to help other people better their lives."

Yes, but is what they believe TRUE? You fail to answer that. You blindly believe and follow....THAT'S a weak mind!

"I don't know why the others are here. They believe in nothing so why are they wasting their time with a lost cause?"

Believing in NOTHING is better than believing in something you can't PROVE. Are you saying people cannot possibly possess morals and do good deeds WITHOUT god?? Really? How do you explain all the corruption from Christians??

"Why ask questions that you don't actually want the answers to? Or do you want the answers?"

I do! And you refuse to!

"Do you actually want someone to answer the questions?"

I have a much better question: Do you HAVE the answers to these questions? Let me guess....NO?

"Or do you just want to entertain yourselves by insulting people that are operating out of a desire to do good?"

Really? Is it really good to believe in something you can't prove? Tell me exactly the good in that. If the Bible is true, then explain to me why the story of Jesus existed THOUSANDS of years before Jesus was born? Read about Horus, Krishna and scores of other gods that had the EXACT same story as Jesus, and this was written about 1500-2000 years BEFORE the actual events supposedly happened in Jesus' life. Is it "doing good" by telling people stories you can't prove??

"Why the hell are you wasting your time questioning religion of any type if you don't care?"

But I do care. I care that people are wasting their time believing in fairy tales and telling OTHERS about them, starting wars because of their beliefs, indoctrinating and poisoning the minds of children [watch Jesus Camp] and incorporating religion in foreign policy.

Real Truth Online said...

"What the hell difference is it going to make in your life?"

I do it to make others THINK and use their minds and stop believing in this mindless hogwash that is no better to believe in that Humpty Dumpty.

"You are asking these questions because you are afraid that your wrong and you are afraid of death."

No, I ask them because I want people like YOU [who claim this stuff is true and tell OTHERS about it like it's true, and go around and build churches and extort money from people--and builds up false hope in people] to ANSWER these questions because people with STRONG analytical minds---NOT weak ones----want you to stop brainwashing people into believing in bullshit that YOU CANT PROVE and YOU CANT ANSWER when asked of you.

"If there is no god, no life after death, no eternal consequences, then you have nothing to be afraid of."

Who said by asking these questions that I'm "afraid"??

"You have nothing to live for."

Completely FALSE. Only a weak mind would assume that if one doesnt have god in their life, then everything is meaningless. Did you know that more Christians murder people than atheists? FACT.

"The reason why is because once you die there will be nothing."

Now you're implying that you KNOW that there will be life after death. How would you KNOW this? Are you not a mere mortal like myself? Or was you given some supernatural power that allows you to see an afterlife while you're still alive?

"You can do what ever the fuck you want."

Why are you using profanity? Didn't Jesus command you to refrain from that? Yes he did. I believe it was James that said "let no unholsum talk come out of your mouth"---and here you are, saying "fuck"----DISOBEYING the very god you are telling ME to respect. You're a twit.

Real Truth Online said...

"Doesn't make a difference because there will be no consequences outside of this life."

And you KNOW there is consequences after this life? My god, if you know that, then you must know the answers to ALL 31 of my questions! But.....you refuse to answer any.

"Go to jail? No problem, kill yourself. What difference does it make. Once dead you will have no memories, no feeling, no pain, no fear. You will cease to exist."

And you have NO IDEA that is NOT the case....unless you, like I said, possess some supernatural power I do not possess.

"That taken into consideration, you have no reason to have any morals whatsoever."

That is such TOTAL bullshit and I think even YOU know that. If people do good deeds because of god and atheists have NO morals, then tell me WHY MORE Christians murder people than atheists???? That is FACT. Why are most wars started by RELIGIOUS people????

"You're on your way there as demonstrated by the rudeness displayed by the responses to people trying to make a civilized debate about the issue."

No one here has even PRESENTED a debate period, civilized OR uncivilized. Not one person has answered ONE of the questions.

"Take it a step further. Do whatever you want, whenever you want. Because life does not matter. As I said when you die, there will be nothing. Escape from your troubles is always just a gun shot to the dead, a blade to the wrist, or a bottle of pills away. Shit, save yourself the trouble and end it now. Then you won't have to waste any more time refuting the crazy christian people."

Odd, because I have the same answer for Christians. If God is so great and heaven such a wonderful place, why don't THEY just end it all and be with God? That way, they can stop murdering people [more than atheists do, by the way], stop starting wars and stop invading countries because "god told them to".

"But first, don't forget to comment on my post with adequate insults and jibes. You gotta make sure you leave a lasting impression for the people that will be left behind to continue wasting their time."

Actually, your own post is your own insult, because in critiquing my original story, you're actually condemning your own post....because my story was a claim that CHRISTIANS CAN'T ANSWER THESE 31 QUESTIONS. And presto, you turned right around and did NOT answer any. You insulted yourself. My claimwas: Christians can't answer these questions. Your response in recap: "You're right, I can't".

Anonymous said...

I ALMOST feel bad for the Christians because they were utterly destroyed by this thread. But hey if you are gonna dance around the questions spewing out scripture that doesn't relate to any questions asked, then I guess you deserve it. I'd be interested to hear Kirk Cameron's crazy ass answers to these questions lol.

Anonymous said...

Simply because the era of Prophets, whom were the reason that God intervened on the tyrants in the Old Testament days, has ended; and therefore, God is not intervening any more, in term of divine or act of God sort of thing. However, he is the creator, therefore, all fates and destinies of his creations are part of a divine master plan only God Himself knows it. So, if He decided that someone will grow up and become a tyrant, it is that individual’s destiny and it is our fate to deal with him.

This is my answer to your question and if you are serious about this talk, please answer this question

Do you believe in God? If yes, do you believe that you were created by him? If yes, Why do you think he created you?

Real Truth Online said...

"Simply because the era of Prophets, whom were the reason that God intervened on the tyrants in the Old Testament days, has ended"

Why?

"...and therefore, God is not intervening any more, in term of divine or act of God sort of thing"

Why?

"However, he is the creator, therefore, all fates and destinies of his creations are part of a divine master plan only God Himself knows it"

Hitler's holocaust---part of God's master plan? How do you explain that?

"So, if He decided that someone will grow up and become a tyrant, it is that individual’s destiny and it is our fate to deal with him."

He DECIDED? So God is deciding who is a tyrant and who is not?

"This is my answer to your question and if you are serious about this talk, please answer this question"

You actually didn't answer the question.

"Do you believe in God? If yes, do you believe that you were created by him? If yes, Why do you think he created you?"

To all three questions, my answer is: I don't know.

MyHeathenHeart said...

Isn't it sad that so much of humanity can't see the logic behind these 31 questions and just wake up from their self-inflicted delusions?

Well done for this post. One can only hope those who need to read it most, do.

Anonymous said...

I have a question for you. Why are you so against quoting other Christians in order to answer your questions? As long as these are "Christian" authors who are answering your unanswerable questions, why should it matter? Isn't that a genetic fallacy? They are fairly reasonable attempts to answer your questions, which you claim you will not read nor respond too.

The same questions, it is interesting to note, that you borrowed most of from Vincent Bugliosi...so why shouldn't we be allowed to post answers that are not literally our own to questions that are not literally your own?

Real Truth Online said...

I will tell you why. Because when it is a Christian that the questions are put to, they are supposed to know the answer, not only mentally, but also in their heart, because it is not just a cognitive issue with them, it is mostly a life-changing event that happened in their heart.

Agnostics are not in the same situation. We are only asking these questions in an intellectual capacity, not because our agnosticism is emotional or something we gave our lives to.

Christians should know these answers because they have given their lives to God. Agnostics have not surrendered anything emotional to some higher power, so we are not interested in this subject for an reason outside of intellectualism and human reason.

The reason I nailed Papa John or whatever the hell he calls himself, is because he did ZERO investigation into something that he supposedly gave his life to. He claims to love God so much, but apparently, it is not worth Papa John's time to investigate this stuff on his own. Besides, the Bible says "always be ready to give an answer to those who question your faith"----Papa was not ready to give his own answer, he was too busy copying and pasting it from others. Plus, even with all his copying and pasting, he still wasn't answering the questions. He only even addressed like 1 or 2 questions anyway----although not answering them. He ignored the other 29.

Anonymous said...

So, what you're saying is, because Christians claim to be Christians, they should have an answer to everything "in their heart"? Why does emotion make them any more responsible to know everything?

And what do you mean by "in their heart" and how is that different or better than mental knowledge?

Also, how is reading the opinions of others not "investigating stuff on your own?"

Tell me if I'm right about this: This blog post was about questions that average Christians can't answer, and not about ones that no Christian in the world has an answer to.

Gary Greenwood said...


16. He will. See Rev. 21

17.If God offered you an all-you-can-eat buffet every day of your life and after constant refusal you starved to death, would that be God's fault? Sounds like blame shifting to me.

18. If man is so bad, as you have admitted. Why does he deserve to live? Furthermore, He does offer eternal life to all freely. Rev. 22, Rom 3

19. Because I do. I love my family more than my own life, but I love God more. And there are millions just like me.

20. From the same place you get your power to tempt your readers to deny God with "30 unanswerable questions". From God. Yes it's called treason.

21. If the US allows a dictator to rule, is the at fault? Do you prefer a God who creates robots or micromanages the universe without freedom? Is your view of God some sort of big Bully?

22. If you take a knife away from a 1 year old does he thank you or cry? If you could ALWAYS have what you want, what would your life be like. Be honest, if you always did what you wanted, where would you be? Jail, dead, sick, embarrassed? What if only your thoughts were displayed for everyone to see. Would we ever hear from you again Larry?

23. Because they want to learn from their mistakes.

24. If Romans 1 commands us to use our reason to know God.

25. Was Mary a young woman when she conceived? Yes. Was Mary a Virgin? Yes. So, what's the problem?

26. Perhaps because He wanted Adam and Eve to enjoy the Stars on the sixth day, he created the light before he created the stars. Otherwise we'd still be waiting.

27. Do you ever let your children prove themselves with something that you already know they can do? Why. To build self-esteem, God could have told us that he was willing to sacrifice Jesus, and it would have been true. Instead he showed us.

28. Is it wrong to desire what is rightfully yours?

29. Because God is merciful. God wanted the people to see how far he is willing to go. During those 55 (not 120) years, Noah preached repentance and forgiveness. Well Larry, Jesus said, when he comes it will be similar here. Gods people are here being mocked by articles just like the one i'm briefly answering. But it was God that closed the door.
I wonder how many skeptics there were after the rain began and the fountains of the deep were broken.

30. Larry have you ever looked up the definition of the name Methuselah? It means "after his death, judgment will come". Look it up. And just as God had promised the old man died then Judgment began.

Thanks for giving me the chance to respond. Hope you have a great year, life, and eternity.

Gary M. Greenwood
gsgreenwood@gmail.com



Gary Greenwood said...

Hi Larry, thanks for the thoughts. I thought I'd take a moment to interject a few ideas. In response to several of your impossible questions.

1. If Syria if found guilty of genocide by means of chemical weapons, do you think the US or UN should intervene? If not where was God? If so, could it be God at work today just as he was in the O.T.

2. Are you God's counselor? You are asking us to presume God's motives. Well, to answer your question in one word. Freedom. My guess is that you like to sin, so why are you complaining that God lets you?

3. Yes it is an imperfect world; a fallen world. But I have another question. Why are you putting the blame on God for the mess we made for ourselves? In Gen. 1 God told Adam and eve to take care of the world; I would guess that you agree that we are not doing a great job at that.

4. If we human beings are extremely imperfect, is it possible that you have misplaced opinion of Him? And why do you blame God for your sin. Or mine. We lie, cheat, steal, and hate. God said don't and we do and yet you say "God how could YOU". Larry, how could you?

5. How could chance provide 122 constants to provide life on the earth? Chance sounds pretty intelligent here.

6. perhaps He wanted us to enjoy the beautiful sunsets and full moons.

7-8 Because Moises was not the principal protagonist, God was; and the same God who predicted the four empires hundreds of years in advance, spoke of the roundness of the earth in Isaiah 53, the currents in the ocean in Ecclestiates, and the mountains below the ocean floor, the cycles of rain and dinasaures in Job -- Fortold the death of Paul etc., etc., etc. That same God had no problem letting Moises foretell his own death or if not have a scribe write a post script.

9. Larry, I don't know weather or not you have children, but do you sometimes ask them questions that you already know to teach them? Jesus constantly asked questions to which he knew the answer. Sometimes hypothetical other times just to arrancar the motor. You see, questions convict accusations harden the will. A confession is a lot better than a statement, I.E. Adam I know what you did. Rather God said "Adam, what have you done".

10. Because he loves you Larry, If he had not created mankind you would have never had the chance to live.

11. Do you mean why did God create human beings with whom to fellowship. The answer is because God is social and desires communion with us. We reject Him because we don't like His rules, even though His rules are for our good. What would NYC be like if everyone there kept the ten commandments? I doubt you would like that, but really? How would this world be?

12. C.S. lewis said that "the gates of hell are locked from the inside". God's payment for Adam's sin and our individual sins have been paid for in full. Why don't you accept the gift? Rom. 3 Further do you really need to give the blame for Adam? Think about it, the last time you chewed out your wife or lied to your children (I presume), was Adam there saying "come on Larry let em have it!"?

13. Mercy for one. You just finished asking why God allows the wicked to exist and then doubt Him for putting an end to wickedness. You can't have the cake and eat it.

14. Because He's awesome. But I have a harder question for Christians. . ."why does God love me? Great question Larry.

15. That's simple larry. Because you wouldn't and couldn't.

Gary Greenwood said...



16. He will. See Rev. 21

17.If God offered you an all-you-can-eat buffet every day of your life and after constant refusal you starved to death, would that be God's fault? Sounds like blame shifting to me.

18. If man is so bad, as you have admitted. Why does he deserve to live? Furthermore, He does offer eternal life to all freely. Rev. 22, Rom 3

19. Because I do. I love my family more than my own life, but I love God more. And there are millions just like me.

20. From the same place you get your power to tempt your readers to deny God with "30 unanswerable questions". From God. Yes it's called treason.

21. If the US allows a dictator to rule, is the at fault? Do you prefer a God who creates robots or micromanages the universe without freedom? Is your view of God some sort of big Bully?

22. If you take a knife away from a 1 year old does he thank you or cry? If you could ALWAYS have what you want, what would your life be like. Be honest, if you always did what you wanted, where would you be? Jail, dead, sick, embarrassed? What if only your thoughts were displayed for everyone to see. Would we ever hear from you again Larry?

23. Because they want to learn from their mistakes.

24. If Romans 1 commands us to use our reason to know God.

25. Was Mary a young woman when she conceived? Yes. Was Mary a Virgin? Yes. So, what's the problem?

26. Perhaps because He wanted Adam and Eve to enjoy the Stars on the sixth day, he created the light before he created the stars. Otherwise we'd still be waiting.

27. Do you ever let your children prove themselves with something that you already know they can do? Why. To build self-esteem, God could have told us that he was willing to sacrifice Jesus, and it would have been true. Instead he showed us.

28. Is it wrong to desire what is rightfully yours?

29. Because God is merciful. God wanted the people to see how far he is willing to go. During those 55 (not 120) years, Noah preached repentance and forgiveness. Well Larry, Jesus said, when he comes it will be similar here. Gods people are here being mocked by articles just like the one i'm briefly answering. But it was God that closed the door.
I wonder how many skeptics there were after the rain began and the fountains of the deep were broken.

30. Larry have you ever looked up the definition of the name Methuselah? It means "after his death, judgment will come". Look it up. And just as God had promised the old man died then Judgment began.



Anonymous said...

To all those responding to answer the questions whats the point doesn't the Bible also say not to defend yourselves

Real Truth Online said...

No it says "always be ready to give an answer" Its in 1 Peter I believe. As you can see, the ones who have attempted to answer really aren't answering. They dodge and deflect.

Sassy Phrassy said...

Of course you wouldn't understand the difference between GODLY jealousy & and human jealousy. You are without spirituality discernment. You can answer these questions perfectly to an atheist and they still will try to find a refute because they do not want the responsiblity to fall on them.
Yes, with being a Christian there comes responsibility that God himself place on his children.
Atheist don't believe in God because they are irresponsible. They easliy fit into the category with murderers, adultery and all other sins, transgressions, and inquities. Because if they cross those boundaries, they don't feel the need to be sorry for anything. They choose not to believe in God who created them and gives the life every morning. Its easier not to believe in God, because there is seemly no consequences for the atheist.
So therefore, why answer their questions?

Real Truth Online said...

Sassy, you've lost your mind. First of all, it's not that I dont "understand the difference" between godly jealousy and human jealousy. It's because Im baffled as to why god possesses jealousy AT ALL. He's God, he shouldn't possess such a petty human emotion. He condemns mankind for an emotion that he himself possesses. That makes sense to you?

"Atheist don't believe in God because they are irresponsible."

Can you give proof for this statement? Of course you cant, because your comment is irresponsible.


"They easliy fit into the category with murderers, adultery and all other sins, transgressions, and inquities."

Really? "Easily"?? How come I can find MORE stories in the past 10 years of CHRISTIANS murdering people, molesting, kidnapping and raping children and any other sin you can imagine---but I can find none about atheists doing it?? It's CHRISTIANS who commit the most vile and horrendous crimes you can imagine...not atheists. One recent story I posted was about a lead singer of a CHRISTIAN band who paid someone to kill his wife. I didn't read any stories of ATHEISTS doing that.

"Because if they cross those boundaries, they don't feel the need to be sorry for anything."

That's just it---they rarely cross any boundaries. It's CHRISTIANS who cross them.

"They choose not to believe in God who created them and gives the life every morning."

Exactly. They CHOOSE it, just like YOU chose to believe. They have that choice---as you do. That's YOUR OPINION that god exists and it's YOUR OPINION that god gives them life and created them. You just ADMITTED they have the choice to NOT believe, then in the same sentence proceeded to state YOUR belief and attempt to project it onto them, as if they should accept your belief as well---after you admitted they have the CHOICE not to believe.

"Its easier not to believe in God, because there is seemly no consequences for the atheist."

So, because they don't believe in hell, there's no consequences? Atheists still have to go to jail if they commit a crime. They still get arrested, get sick, suffer death...etc... The ONLY difference between the Christian and the Atheist when it comes to consequences is the BELIEF....not the REALITY that hell exists. YOU cannot prove it exists...therefore it is a BELIEF. When you can PROVE God and hell exists, it is only THEN you can judge the behavior of the atheist and condemn their actions. But you cannot prove diddly squat---so close your pie hole. AS I stated earlier, Christians do more killing, raping, etc... than atheists do-----so if Christians KNOW the consequence of this, why do they commit more vile crimes than atheists do?

"So therefore, why answer their questions?"

Because the bible (the book you claim to obey) instructs you to "always be ready to give an answer for the faith you have". That's why.

It would also indicate that you HAVE an answer to give. Many times Christians do not answer questions put to them----as so brilliantly showcased in this very thread by Papa Giorgio-----who posted very lengthy responses, but never answered ONE question I asked.

Anonymous said...

Shame religious folks need a god to justify good actions, as if good was not a humane action...

Anonymous said...

Everyone has their own beliefs...

Anonymous said...

Given the fact that the 72 names used to address the supposedly ONE, TRUE creator were replaced with "God" or "Lord God" in virtually all Christian translations, A better question would be - Are these ALL the same entity?

Now when it comes to matters of "Love", I would invite you to contemplate the DIFFERENCE between HOW humans express this emotion toward one another & a supposedly non-corporeal entity.

-> Time/Money vs. an INTERNAL affirmation

Would you take anything seriously if you were omnipotent/omniscient?

The Book of Job is an excellent example of God not answering to anyone, not making things "better", just to win a bet.

Try googling "mouse prize"...Methuselah may not in fact be dead. lol

Anonymous said...

Why would you fall for the obvious trap of letting a so-called "christian" turn a debate about one religion into an overall debate over theism in general?

Anonymous said...

Notice that you spend more time matching the anger of bigoted assholes, rather than pointing out an incoherent line of circular reasoning?

e.g. How does jealousy "protect" one's "supremacy"?

Anonymous said...

I find it so funny that the first commenter tries to be a philosophical "academic", yet fucks up the syntax so badly.

Papa Giorgio said...

I always get posts for this strain. With thanks to you guys I have (a while back) posted, and got a LOT of traffic in to view what ultimately grew from this site:

Atheists Challenge to Biblical Ethics (2 Kings 2:23-25 – Updated)

Anonymous said...

So that's why "42" is the answer to everything? :)

Kill one-tenth (as you might have suggested) and conquer all those who stand against you.

The odds of that many people even being incapacitated in the face of ONLY 2 bears...IF they were anywhere NEAR adults is highly illogical.

Anonymous said...

Fundamentalists push so hard because "selling" a common fear dogma provides them with a FEELING of "power"/security.

It allows them to temporarily "forget" that the 5 senses are merely a derivation of actual existence.

Feelings are not FACTS.

Christians "pick and choose" because statistically more Non-Christians have Actually READ the bible cover-to-cover.

You provided blatant examples of HOW their "God" selectively REVOKED Free Will, yet as "Christians" ALWAYS do, they TOTALLY disregard the validity of the verses cited WHEN it contradicts their RECRUITMENT agenda.

The most obvious conclusion is that the "God" of the Bible is NOT the OMNIPOTENT creator of All Existence.

Katelyn said...

Hello, my name is Katelyn and I am a Christian that is choosing to respond to your post.

Okay I will try my best to answer respectfully and slowly so you can understand why I can answer this/that question.

3. If God were all-perfect and all-powerful, why would he do such a poor job and create such an imperfect world with its deadly earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc?

Okay I don't know if you know the Adam and Eve story but it is one of the first stories that Christians learn.
God made a beautiful world, everything being perfect. He also made man and a woman. He let them do anything and everything they wanted from the garden, but he said not to eat from a tree. They were very curious of the fruit and the devil tempted them. He said the fruit made you more powerful than God and that's why He was keeping you from it. Adam and Eve listened to the devil and ate the fruit. They had disobeyed God and sinned for the first time. God was very angry with them and threw them out of heaven.

The whole reason why he made the tree was to test them, to see if they would sin. And they did, that's why we aren't in heaven right now. Because we sinned. Technically our ancestors sinned (Adam and Eve) but we would have done the same thing.

God talks about a day that Jesus will come back to Earth and the devil will too. The Christians will be sent to heaven. BUT the unbelievers will be left. Jesus will try and get you to believe and the devil will try to turn you away from God. And the ones who are saved will be in a perfect place (heaven) and the ones that aren't save will be in hell.

The Bible doesn't say that God sends anyone to hell, and yet they do go to hell. But they don't go there because God sends them; it's the only place for those who have rejected Jesus Christ and have no capacity for God whatsoever.

God gives us all a choice. Believe in Jesus or not. It's all up to you. All you have to do is pray, "Father in heaven, I believe you are the one true God and that Jesus died on the cross for me. I love you." <<Now it doesn't have to be specifically like that, you just have to say that you believe in God and that Jesus died on the cross. But my point is, that the reason why we aren't in a perfect world is because we sinned. When Jesus and the devil comes the believers will go to heaven and the unbelievers will go to hell. ALSO MAKE SURE TO READ THIS PART: God will eventually destroy all evil and we Christians will be together and living in the perfect world forever and ever.

And you, athiest, have a choice to burn and die in hell or believe and live in a perfect world.

This is true information and we Christians never stop to share our faith, but look a little more into this stuff. ;)

Anonymous said...

5. Why would God need 122 “constants” to provide life on Earth?
(“constants” are precise scientific conditions in which if altered slightly [like the Earth being just 1% closer to the sun], life on Earth would cease)

This is to show His power. To show how amazing He is.

Real Truth Online said...

"This is to show His power. To show how amazing He is."

This neither makes any sense, nor answers the question. Keep trying. The irony in this answer is the fact that IF God was "showing power", he would NOT need the constants at all, he could simply just sustain all balance in the universe with his power alone.

Real Truth Online said...

Katelyn,

If you believe in the Adam and Eve story at all, you need a psychiatrist.

Your response to question #3 is not an answer. It is simply just a Sunday school lesson about Adam & Eve. This does NOT answer why he made the world imperfect with floods, hurricanes, etc...

"The Bible doesn't say that God sends anyone to hell, and yet they do go to hell."

You KNOW this for a fact? Do you have video of people actually IN hell right now? I'd love to see that.

"God gives us all a choice. Believe in Jesus or not. It's all up to you"

This is false. God doesnt not give us a choice when he basically says "choose me or go to hell". That's not a choice. It's fearmongering. It's based on fear, not freedom of choice.

You can't claim that if you give a person two options and one of them is the WRONG choice, that you are giving someone a choice.

Let's say I ask you, "Would you rather have the apple or the orange"? And you say, "the apple". My response is, "Bad choice, you should have chosen the orange, because now you will suffer. We are taking you out, blindfolding you and shooting you dead". Would THAT be a CHOICE? Of course not. But youre saying God acts in the very same way, and we are supposed to love him for this?

"And you, athiest, have a choice to burn and die in hell or believe and live in a perfect world"

I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. Big difference. You're an agnostic too, you just dont admit it. An agnostic is a person who has no proof God exists and simply doesnt know either way. You dont know either. You have FAITH. Faith isnt knowing, that's why it's called faith. Faith and knowledge are opposites.

"This is true information and we Christians never stop to share our faith..."

No. It;s not true information. You BELIEVE it's true. Believing something doesnt make it true. You've been duped.

Anonymous said...

It's important to stick up for your own beliefs but don't you think it's a little narrow minded to think that only you are right and everybody else is going to spend eternity is hell? Please answer this, it's a genuine question......

Enter username here said...

Katelyn, you are just like every other Christian who idiotically decides to put herself in the middle of an argument hopefully knowing full well that she can't win it. Because, she is like every other stupid little Christian lamb. But oh well, it can serve as your little crutch and it'll give you hope and happiness thinking that there is some divine entity out there that loves you enough to not do one fucking thing to change all the shit that's going on in this world.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's really necessary to stereotype every Christian just because one person can't understand that not everyone apart from her is wrong.

Anonymous said...

If anybody can ACTUALLY answer number 13 without just saying something like 'Gd has a plan' or 'nobody knows wat Gd is doing' then I will be very VERY impressed. Who knows you may even get a conversion from me!!

joeyeploof.com said...

For question #1 can you please provide at least one example of an atrocity which God did intervene in in the OT? Also a specific atrocity from history in which He did not?

Anonymous said...

.....

Papa Giorgio said...

"What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” ~ Dawkins

Again, as an example to respond to this:

▼ If anybody can ACTUALLY answer number 13 without just saying something like 'Gd has a plan' or 'nobody knows wat Gd is doing' then I will be very VERY impressed. Who knows you may even get a conversion from me!

The question is asked AS IF the person asking it has a philosophical or epistemological foundation to do so. I have already answered a few of the queries above (here and on my site)... but I will again respond to this idea again so that those that come after this post have a reference of sorts.

Most of the above question (if not all of them) are theological or philosophical questions. Many of which have been asked since Grecian times. The "how could a good God allow evil to exist... either "He" is evil or "He" doesn't care about us... thingy." There are already a myriad of books on this:

PHILOSOPHICAL
1) The Evidential Argument from Evil (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion), ed. Howard-Snyder;
2) God, Freedom, and Evil, by Plantinga;
3) Faith and Reason, by Nash.

HISTORICAL
1) Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, by Copan;
2) Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God, by Copan and Flannagan.

EASY READS
1) Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case, by Turek;
2) I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, by Geisler and Turek;
3) On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, by Craig and Strobel.

Those will cover most of the above 31-questions in-depth and at various reading levels.

However, I wish to draw the reader's attention to the following two quotes, and this is key, that there is no basis -- without God -- to say an action is really, morally wrong...

...CONTINUING...

Papa Giorgio said...

==========
QUOTE ONE
==========

Let's consider a basic question: Why does the natural world make any sense to begin with? Albert Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Why should we be able to grasp the beauty, elegance, and complexity of our universe?

Einstein understood a basic truth about science, namely, that it relies upon certain philosophical assumptions about the natural world. These assumptions include the existence of an external world that is orderly and rational, and the trustworthiness of our minds to grasp that world. Science cannot proceed apart from these assumptions, even though they cannot be independently proven. Oxford professor John C. Lennox asks a penetrating question, "At the heart of all science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly. Without this deep conviction science would not be possible. So we are entitled to ask: Where does the conviction come from?"" Why is the world orderly? And why do our minds comprehend this order?

Toward the end of The God Delusion, Dawkins admits that since we are the product of natural selection, our senses cannot be fully trusted. After all, according to Darwinian evolution, our senses have been formed to aid survival, not necessarily to deliver true belief. Since a human being has been cobbled together through the blind process of natural selection acting on random mutation, says Dawkins, it's unlikely that our views of the world are completely true. Outspoken philosopher of neuro-science Patricia Churchland agrees:

▼ The principle chore of brains is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing [the world] is advantageous so long as it... enhances the organism's chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost.

Dawkins is on the right track to suggest that naturalism should lead people to be skeptical about trusting their senses. Dawkins just doesn't take his skepticism far enough. In Miracles, C. S. Lewis points out that knowledge depends upon the reliability of our mental faculties. If human reasoning is not trustworthy, then no scientific conclusions can be considered true or false. In fact, we couldn't have any knowledge about the world, period. Our senses must be reliable to acquire knowledge of the world, and our reasoning faculties must be reliable to process the acquired knowledge. But this raises a particularly thorny dilemma for atheism. If the mind has developed through the blind, irrational, and material process of Darwinian evolution, then why should we trust it at all? Why should we believe that the human brain—the outcome of an accidental process—actually puts us in touch with reality? Science cannot be used as an answer to this question, because science itself relies upon these very assumptions.

Even Charles Darwin was aware of this problem: "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" If Darwinian evolution is true, we should distrust the cognitive faculties that make science possible.

Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2010), 37-38.
=====
END
=====


...CONTINUING...

Papa Giorgio said...

==========
QUOTE ONE
==========

Even Darwin had some misgivings about the reliability of human beliefs. He wrote, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Given unguided evolution, “Darwin’s Doubt” is a reasonable one. Even given unguided or blind evolution, it’s difficult to say how probable it is that creatures—even creatures like us—would ever develop true beliefs. In other words, given the blindness of evolution, and that its ultimate “goal” is merely the survival of the organism (or simply the propagation of its genetic code), a good case can be made that atheists find themselves in a situation very similar to Hume’s.

The Nobel Laureate and physicist Eugene Wigner echoed this sentiment: “Certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.” That is, atheists have a reason to doubt whether evolution would result in cognitive faculties that produce mostly true beliefs. And if so, then they have reason to withhold judgment on the reliability of their cognitive faculties. Like before, as in the case of Humean agnostics, this ignorance would, if atheists are consistent, spread to all of their other beliefs, including atheism and evolution. That is, because there’s no telling whether unguided evolution would fashion our cognitive faculties to produce mostly true beliefs, atheists who believe the standard evolutionary story must reserve judgment about whether any of their beliefs produced by these faculties are true. This includes the belief in the evolutionary story. Believing in unguided evolution comes built in with its very own reason not to believe it.

This will be an unwelcome surprise for atheists. To make things worse, this news comes after the heady intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins claims evolution provided for thoughtful unbelievers. The very story that promised to save atheists from Hume’s agnostic predicament has the same depressing ending.

It’s obviously difficult for us to imagine what the world would be like in such a case where we have the beliefs that we do and yet very few of them are true. This is, in part, because we strongly believe that our beliefs are true (presumably not all of them are, since to err is human—if we knew which of our beliefs were false, they would no longer be our beliefs).

Suppose you’re not convinced that we could survive without reliable belief-forming capabilities, without mostly true beliefs. Then, according to Plantinga, you have all the fixins for a nice argument in favor of God’s existence For perhaps you also think that—given evolution plus atheism—the probability is pretty low that we’d have faculties that produced mostly true beliefs. In other words, your view isn’t “who knows?” On the contrary, you think it’s unlikely that blind evolution has the skill set for manufacturing reliable cognitive mechanisms. And perhaps, like most of us, you think that we actually have reliable cognitive faculties and so actually have mostly true beliefs. If so, then you would be reasonable to conclude that atheism is pretty unlikely. Your argument, then, would go something like this: if atheism is true, then it’s unlikely that most of our beliefs are true; but most of our beliefs are true, therefore atheism is probably false...

...CONTINUING...

Papa Giorgio said...

...Notice something else. The atheist naturally thinks that our belief in God is false. That’s just what atheists do. Nevertheless, most human beings have believed in a god of some sort, or at least in a supernatural realm. But suppose, for argument’s sake, that this widespread belief really is false, and that it merely provides survival benefits for humans, a coping mechanism of sorts. If so, then we would have additional evidence—on the atheist’s own terms—that evolution is more interested in useful beliefs than in true ones. Or, alternatively, if evolution really is concerned with true beliefs, then maybe the widespread belief in God would be a kind of “evolutionary” evidence for his existence.

You’ve got to wonder.

Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith: To the Head (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2012), 44-45.
=====
END
=====


You see these guys, or gals (a lot of "anonymous" people here), are asking questions they cannot answer. Ravi Gives a good response to this. But you will notice that the link in "Dawkins" at the top you hear atheists "defend" non-morality. Atheist "evangelists."

This answers #13... whether this site acknowledges it or not.

Real Truth Online said...

Hey Papa John,

Do you EVER make a post in your OWN words? Or are all your posts on every blog you respond to just giant segments of other people's words? Do you have a mind of your own??

Real Truth Online said...

joeyeploof.com said...
"For question #1 can you please provide at least one example of an atrocity which God did intervene in in the OT? Also a specific atrocity from history in which He did not?"

Oh yes, three come to mind (atrocities in which God had a hand in)

1. The flood
2. The killing of 42 kids by two bears
3. The 10 plagues of Egypt

Atrocities in which god NOT intervene:

1. 9/11
2. The crusades
3. The holocaust

I could go on and on (in each category), but why would you want to be further embarrassed?

Papa Giorgio said...

At Joey. Just one example of your three which I dealt with in-depth here: Atheists Challenge to Biblical Ethics

That responds well to the 42-kids challenge... and, in fact I add to the already published material out there on the matter with original material near the end.

So, the "she bears" is a big bust.

But more importantly, as i noted above... "OUGHT" God have intervened? Why? You would have to assume the Judeo-Christian ethic to say it is immoral not to. No other worldview has this "ought."

In other words, and I have to say this over-and-over again for the charge to sink in apparently, you are assuming the Christian Theist position in order to add any weight to the subject. You assume what you reject ~ Ravi

So to recap:

You have a horrible understanding of incedences in the Scripture, and you should consider one book on the subject so you know that which you reject: Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, by Copan.

And you have no warrant to say something is wrong, morally, nor to say something "ought" to have been done ~ Craig Again, one should know what they reject: Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case, by Turek

Joey Ploof said...

My personal response to question #1. More to come...
http://joeyeploof.com/2015/02/25/responding-to-the-critics-1/

Real Truth Online said...

Joey, you will not be allowed to post comments on my blog unless you remove comment moderation on yours--or if you fail to approve my comments. I cant stand people who think they are right and have all the truth, yet stifle the people they debate from speaking. That is exactly what youre doing by enabling comment moderation.

And just incase you dont approve my comments I posted on your blog, this is what I said:

“Since the non-believer asking the original question is trying to disprove God (the moral law giver) he must first address the question of why anything is wrong with anything.”

This is absurd. I cant stand when Christians assume that atheists and agnostics cant do moral and ethical things unless they acknowledge there had to be some god or law giver. It’s the most absurd stance there is. People do good because we all have a natural inclination to treat our fellow man in a decent, respectful way. We simply treat others respectful because WE want to be treated good a respectful. It’s a golden rule type deal—and no, the golden rule is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Get off your high horse and stop spewing that complete BS to people, especially intelligent people.

Also, if the above quote I quoted from you is true—why do so many Christians commit atrocities??

Papa Giorgio said...

No one is assuming atheists can't do moral things? No one? Where do you get this idea from. In fact, it is a straw man attack... you set up a premise that no one asserts, and then you tear it down to -- I guess -- make yourself look good.

Again, I already responded to this with a short video from WLC.

We [theists] are "posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values."

And of course, atheists themselves respond in a similar fashion by saying they cannot live without God. I can almost hear another straw-man argument instead of grasping the meta-ethical (ontological or foundational epistemological belief really being referenced) and you saying -- "look, I am living, and I don't believe in gog! HaHa... have atchyoo!"

Likewise, I have already quoted Dawkins as saying, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”

So again, the ontological grounding of mores is the debate between atheists and theists. But ATHEISTS themselves concede on the points.

Again, Dawkins:

"So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process. Genes don’t care about suffering, because they don’t care about anything…. DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music…. This universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

And Dr. Provine (last video in this post to see him say this):

"No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life."

AGAIN, your argument is with fellow atheists, not theists.

Real Truth Online said...

Oh lookie, its Papa John back from the dead to spew more copy and paste crapola from other blogs and books, instead of his OWN words and thoughts. No thanks.

Joey Ploof said...

I appreciate every comment and have never failed to approve a comment yet. I moderate comments because I reserve the right to reject overly profane comments. Any comment that doesn't use profanity will be approved.

Joey Ploof said...

I don't want to get on the middle of what you and Papa Giorgio have going on here, but when you criticise him for "copy and paste", also known as using other often better minds as resources, you do realize that you begin the body of your article by saying you drew heavily from an outside source, right?

Papa Giorgio said...

Thank you Joey for honestly pointing out the [at least] apparent double standard.

Real Truth Online said...

"I don't want to get on the middle of what you and Papa Giorgio have going on here, but when you criticise him for "copy and paste", also known as using other often better minds as resources, you do realize that you begin the body of your article by saying you drew heavily from an outside source, right?"

Except for the fact that there are major differences in my reference than in Papa John's references.

1. My reference was used only as an ADDITION to questions I also threw in. Papa John's references are ALL references of OTHERS, NONE of his responses are HIS words.

2. My reference isnt used in the response to a QUESTION someone is asking ME to answer, Papa John's are.

3. Every single word in Papa John's responses are cut and paste jobs of OTHERS work, none are his OWN words. Every single word of MY responses to questions he asks are from ME.

Papa Giorgio said...

Again, no matter the opinion, when this is said: "This is absurd. I cant stand when Christians assume that atheists and agnostics cant do moral and ethical things unless they acknowledge there had to be some god or law giver."

It should be pointed out that the new atheists as well as the old atheists say this. So it should read thus: "This is absurd. I cant stand when atheists assume that atheists and agnostics cant do moral and ethical things unless they acknowledge there had to be some god or law giver."

Sartre said it made no difference whether you salute or play a poker game, the ship is still going down. Kai Nielsen has even note that he was not able,

"to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me.... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality" (RF)

Again, you are arguing against atheists, not me, or Christians.

Real Truth Online said...

Papa John, dont understand a word of your post. And I suppose that was the point, to play word games and obfuscate your response in confusion, so that you can claim you responded, yet addressed nothing I said.

Here's a question for you:

If you had only two people in the whole world to watch your new born baby and to put your complete trust in to take care of the child, whom would you choose, person A (a person who claimed to be a Christian, yet has a police record a mile long and just got out of prison for murder), or person B (an atheist who has never been arrested, has no record, not even a parking ticket--and is an upstanding citizen in society who just graduated from a prestigious law firm and is considered a role model among his peers?)

You cannot answer "neither". You have to pick one. Who do you pick?

Papa Giorgio said...

You are missing the point that R. Dawkins, K. Nielsen, D. Dennett, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, S. Harris, M. Martin, and others are making.

In other words, your question is a category mistake... missing the "subject/object" distinction these thinkers are making.

It is not my job to hold your hand and get you to see clearly what these atheists philosophers and poets have written. It is basically... philosophy 101.

Here is Voltaire making a similar point in his [theodicy] poem after the earthquake and tsunami event that destroyed Lisbon:

--------------------------
Horror on horrors, griefs on griefs must show,
That man’s the victim of unceasing woe,
And lamentations which inspire my strain,
Prove that philosophy is false and vain,
Approach in crowds and meditate awhile
You shattered walls, and view each ruined pile,
Women and children heaped up mountain high,
Limbs crushed which under ponderous marble lie;
Wretches unnumbered in the pangs of death,
Who mangled, torn, and panting for their breath,
Buried beneath their sinking roofs expire,
And end their wretched lives in torments dire,
Say, when you hear their piteous, half-formed cries,
Or from their ashes see the smoke arise,
Say, will you then eternal laws maintain,
Which God to cruelties like these constrain? …
But when like us Fate’s rigors you have felt,
Become humane, like us you’ll learn to melt,
When the earth gapes my body to entomb,
I justly may complain of such a doom.

--------------------------

These thinkers and others express an honest accounting of a world or cosmos without God. I cannot help you see what they do.

A G A I N, "It’s not logical to conclude that a person who denies the existence of God cannot conduct themselves in a manner that we would consider moral.... Whether it is being used by misguided believers or it is merely a straw-man argument being torn down by a skeptic, it is clear that asking if an atheist can be moral is simply the wrong question. A more helpful discussion would be to explore this question: where does our concept of morality comes from to begin with?" (more)

Real Truth Online said...

I didnt see an answer to my question anywhere in your post (as usual). So, I'll post it AGAIN.

"Here's a question for you:

If you had only two people in the whole world to watch your new born baby and to put your complete trust in to take care of the child, whom would you choose, person A (a person who claimed to be a Christian, yet has a police record a mile long and just got out of prison for murder), or person B (an atheist who has never been arrested, has no record, not even a parking ticket--and is an upstanding citizen in society who just graduated from a prestigious law firm and is considered a role model among his peers?)

You cannot answer "neither". You have to pick one. Who do you pick?"

Answer this time, or I will deem that you are afraid to answer out of embarrassment of being caught in yet another contradictory response.

Shriram said...

Ok I would like to say that when people have accepted positions whether atheist or theist they just stubbornly cling to their own positions. A discussion with such people is not possible.

Benayim A.I. said...

1. He does not do so because his people are rebellious. He gave his laws, commandments, and judgements to Israel. Not any other nation. READ Deuteronomy 28.

2. God gave us freedom of will. So we can chose to do good or evil. He made us perfect at first but when Eve had listened to the devil (eating the fruit of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL), when then knew what evil was. Remember Eve had a choice. She could have said no.

3. The world gets more deadly as it gets older. Christ came and warned us about it. Man has drilled and torne up this earth. READ Matthew 24. It's only going to get worse.

4. We were perfect (we did not know what evil was). See Answer 2. Also it is not to late to be perfect. Yes. I said it. We can be PERFECT. If you follow the law you are considered perfect. READ Deut 18:13, 1 John 4, Mat 5:48. Perfection is and should be a S.M.A.R.T goal.

5. Because he can do whatever he wants. Who knows if science is right. Wasn't it "science that said we evolved from apes?!

6. Why do cars run on gas? They can run on water (do the research, it was done). Refer to answer 5 as well.

7. I personally don't know

8. I do know that Moses wrote down everything that God told him. This may answer you question 7.

9. Maybe only God knows this one.

10. You should READ the bible. I advise you though, if you're not an israelite let an israelite teach you for God gave his first and second convenant to ONLY Israel.

11. HAHA. You need to READ. You would not be asking such things if you READ the basic instructions before leaving earth. Read answer 2 again. and the beginning of the Bible.

12. Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman. If they ate what they were not suppose to eat and know evil, WHY should the seed of Adam know no evil. It's simple, if you don't understand then ask my Father in heaven for understanding.

13. Why do millions die at war because of a small group's interest (the elite)? That may not answer your question but hey you are not worthy of an answer. Think about it.

14. God's love is that he gave the law and judgements to Israel and Christ his on (to ONLY ISRAEL). The love of God is to keep his commandments. READ John 14:15.

15. SMH. The old way to be forgiven of sins is through sacrifice. The new way is through Christ.

16. lol You should read the Bible. Read first and then ask your questions.

I'm cutting it here because if you READ the word of God you wouldn't be asking any of these questions

Shalom

Real Truth Online said...

Benyaim---here are my responses to each of your pointless responses.

1. Your response did not answer the question

2. Bull. God did not give us free will. There are many passages in the bible where free will was taken from people because god "controlled" it

3. But man has nothing to do with why there are natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes. So you didnt answer the question.

4. Youre just wrong. We were not born perfect because man chose sin. A perfect person wouldnt choose sin. Jesus was said to be perfect and he didnt sin (supposedly). And the bible makes it clear that no one can ever be perfect because we are all sinners. If people can BECOME perfect, then the bible is wrong.

5. Stupid answer. You cant say "god can do whatever he wants" as an answer to a questuon that is questioning why he needed underlying scientific conditions to sustain Earth. WHy isnt Earth self-sustaining if god can do whatever he wants?

6. Another non answer that had nothing to do with the question.

7. That's because the bible is FALSE. Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to write about events AFTER they die.

8. Non-answer.

9. Another non answer. Avoidance of the question, plain and simple

10. You didnt answer the question

11. Another avoidance answer. God did not give people free will nor were people born perfect. If they were perfect, they would have never sinned.

12. You avoided the question.

13. You ADMIT not answering the question, which was the entire point of my article and title of my article. Yes, many die in war, but mankind is sinful, as you stated...God isnt....and the question was "why does GOD kill massive amounts of people for the sins of one?". You didnt answer.

14. You didnt answer why God needs love from sinful mankind. An answer to that is nowhere in your answer.

15. The question was "why was Jesus' death the ONLY way?"------and you claim I cant read??

16. None of the answers to my 31 questions are in the bible, thats why Im asking them. So, you cant answer "read the bible to find out" because the answer isnt there---and the fact that you just ignored answering solidifies my question even more!

17 and beyond....I guess you were getting too exhausted just typing "read the bible, read the bible" and decided the questions were just getting harder and harder. Thank you for proving the entire point of my article. You did more good for the cause of the agnostic than you did your side.

Thank you

joeyeploof.com said...

Here's today's post addressing question number 3

http://joeyeploof.com/2015/03/25/questions-christians-cant-answer-3/

And one from a few weeks ago addressing question 2, in case you missed it

http://joeyeploof.com/2015/03/04/questions-christians-cant-answer-2/

Anonymous said...

Thank your everybody for answering the questions... A very interesting debate.....

Anonymous said...

31 Questions Christians a.k.a believers in an afterlife, Can’t Answer? Hmm, that sounds about right in true form, for i too find this religion nonsense a bit to misleading at times too. So many unsatisfactory answers in relation to that biblical doctrine, that seems to respect simple logic without any fancy bible college degrees... Thus, reading a few of these answers randomly, and taking some of these at face value while rejecting others that only criticize the other answers, only adds greatly to this list of 31 difficult questions for Christians to answer. It is indeed a vicious circle of a paradox like who created God? Just another failed topic to so many who defend their faith with this very old outdated book called the bible. The holy scriptures reminds me of several dozen tall stores and made up stuff that sound like childhood fairy tales. This added to reinforce a belief system that 9 times out of 10 tend to reject all earth science and cling to their beliefs. This even if they have no physical evidence to back up what so many claim as the living gospel of all truth...

Believe i could answer some of these questions but, even if my answers where 100% accurate thus, having full faith that this particular question has now been answered quite correctly indeed. like in all things this is not enough! It is just my word with no substance against them via a blank testimony of one that can't be verified ever. For no creature made of mere flesh no matter how intelligent the answer still has no selective evidence to sway objective opinions...

Austin burchett said...

My name is Austin ( I am atheist ) I've came here to gain access to more questions I can ask Christians in which they're not able to answer. As i read these questions I noticed I've asked very similar questions to many Christians I have had discussions with nor did they answer them. I scrolled down to see if any Christian person had answered any of these qs but neither did they. I got so intrigued with this article I read every single comment excluding "papa johns" copy and paste spree Which has me rolling. In conclusion all Christians are the same and avoid questions they can't answer by speaking of something which is totally irrelevant to the question. I find it sad that Christians and other religious individuals are so weak/close minded.
I just wanted to say I have never spoken to any of you agnostics & atheists before but I feel as if we are the more intellectual part of the human race.

Neil said...

I don't think you guys really want answers to these questions or maybe you just don't know how to read literature holistically. Prop lists like this are not very difficult even though you try to present them as contradictions and/or conundrums. These questions are simply straw men. For concise answers to every question listed see The Complete Bible Answer Book by Hank Hanegraaff, or just check out the Bible Answer Man show online at equip.org. The show is also found on Sirius XM 131 at 5:00pm CST, M-F. The Christian Research Institute also has hundreds of free articles on-line by scholars, professors,teachers, philosophers, and scientists that cover every skeptic's challenge posed up to this point in history. These articles are researched, reviewed, and footnoted. All you need now is an open mind.

Joey Ploof said...

My latest response...
http://joeyeploof.com/2015/05/13/why-make-sinful-man-qcca-11/

Takeisha Bethel said...

Evil began on earth when Satan told the first lie. Satan was originally a perfect angel, but “he did not stand fast in the truth.” (John 8:44) He developed a desire for worship that rightly belongs only to God. Satan lied to the first woman, Eve, and persuaded her to obey him instead of God. Adam joined Eve in disobeying God. Adam’s decision led to suffering and death.—Read Genesis 3:1-6, 19. jw.org

Takeisha Bethel said...

Do you really seek answers to these questions? Or are you just fed up with world conditions and hypocrisy?

Anonymous said...

Are these the warm-up questions? These are very simple to explain. When will you post the hard questions?
Jeff

Real Truth Online said...

If they are so easy, where are the answers? I noticed you left that out. LOL

Thinking said...

We did not choose to be sinners. Adam and Eve did and the rest of us are born sinners so we have no choice at all. Adam and Eve were the only people to have free will. Jesus making a way back to God would be all well and good if He came in the first generation before anyone died in their sin and every single person all over the world since creation heard of Him and had the choice to believe or not. I know we then start getting into predestination which is a whole other discussion. The simple fact is not everybody has the same chance to be forgiven. Can God be good and only save enlightened mostly educated people.

Unknown said...

Let me give this a shot! Hmm. Which question should I start with?

Joey Ploof said...

So, if the source he quoted came on here and gave you the response themself he copy and pasted you would treat it as a serious response but because it's copied and pasted you won't? Why not just address the argument you've been presented with or give grounds against the source (why it's not valid)?

amir jackson said...

Well I guess I'll do #3.

Well first off, God didn't do a poor job and create such an imperfect world with these natural disasters.
The world he made was originally pefect , and free of sin. Noe sin can sometimes be thought to only pertain to humans. This is true, but when Adam sinned, sin had ENTERED the world. It didn't just affect human nature, it affected the universe itself. Sin distorted all that was good and perfect.

You might be wondering something like, "but how can natural disasters be considered sinful?"

Well they're not. The result of sin is death. And sin entered the world, so the world does things that cause death. Sin is basically anything that is bad, and can be applied to morality because that's the main issue.

To sum it up, it was an aftereffect of sin entering the world. A curse put upon man and the world. All choices have consequences, and Adam's choice determined how the whole world would function.
Did this answer it?

amir jackson said...

BTW, this original poster of the comment above my last one is also me. Idk why the user changed

amir jackson said...

Not necessarily. I'm Christian and I love answering questions with real answers. If I don't know the answer, I'll simply state it and do research on it later.

amir jackson said...

The only thing I can say about this(to Christians) is don't attempt to answer the question if you don't the answer. To u, I say that not all Christians delve that deeply into understanding because it's all about faith. I, being Christian myself, am also all about faith. But I have the answers because I'm a very inquisitive person, and want ALL the answers. So eventually, I find them.
There's only about 3 or 4 questions here I'm unsure of.

amir jackson said...

I've been all over this thread but I had to answer this lol. I would choose the atheist, I choose this for a number of reasons, but I'll say one of them. It's because the Christian CLAIMS to be Christian, and a person with that record claiming to be Christian must be a hypocrite.

amir jackson said...

Btw, I'm just aching for a reply. I love to discuss/debate on these kinds of topics. As well as answer questions. The suspense is killing me

amir jackson said...

No reply yet, so i guess ill answer a couple more. #2 If God were all-powerful, why wouldn’t he create humans who could appreciate good without having evil to compare it with?

Think about what your asking. How would that even be possible? The opposite of good is evil. You can't have two opposites. You can't appreciate something until you've seen the negative effects of its opposite. It's simply not possible.
Now God is all powerful. And he did create humans who could appreciate good without evil. Their names were Adam and Eve. They chose to sin, so that's why we have evil to compare with. Them sinning, however, did make them appreciate good more. Gratitude and appreciation is a feeling only capable of being produced when we don't have something we need, and then our needs are provided. We don't have the goodness we need, we have sin, but then God provides the goodness we need and we appreciate that. In a world that you describe, we would appreciate goodness, but not as much as we should, and we might take some things for granted. Not realizing just how good we have it.

amir jackson said...

And another. If God is all-just, how can he possibly punish mankind for what Adam did?

He can punish mankind because it's our fault to. Adam may have sinned and determined that the universe would function imperfectly. But it's not his fault that we choose to sin. Although it is his fault we're born with a sinful a nature, we're responsible for our choices once we have a proficient understanding of morality. We choose to sin when we have the option of doing good. Although our free will is within the constraints of sin's law, it is still our own choice. That's the big reveal. Of course we can be forgiven when we accept Christ. Nobody is truly responsible for their actions until they've heard about God. If they reject Him, then they get punished. Knowingly sinning and having at least basic knowledge about God makes us worthy of punishment. Because we're accepting sin, a crime against God, and doing it unashamedly. Wouldn't you say that's worthy of punishment? Doing something you know you shouldn't be doing, not caring about what anyone said. Imagine your child doing this to you, or imagine you're self employed and your employing is disobeying your orders, and he KNOWS exactly what you told him to do, but doesn't care because what he's doing requires less responsibility. How would that make you feel?

amir jackson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
amir jackson said...

#17 How infinite can Jesus’ love be if for those who reject him as being their savior, he consigns them to an everlasting hell?

Jesus doesn't consign them to hell, they consigned themselves to hell. Hell is a place where sin goes. Since sin cannot exist in a holy place without tainting it. Hell is the only other place. Since sin is bad, a place where only sin exists would also be bad right?

The result of sin is death. This is why our physical bodies die(eventually). We're born spiritually dead though, and that means we're separated from God. When you die physically your spirit goes back to God, but if you haven't been sanctified on Earth and spiritually reborn(reconciled with God) then you're still spiritually dead. And that basically means you chose sin over God. Your spirit still being sinful, and the only place for a sinful spirit is hell. Hell is also punishment for purposely being ignorant of God, and refusing to be reconciled.


Now God doesn't want us to go to hell, which is why he came to Earth as Jesus to give is a chance to be reconciled. His love is infinite because of this, even tyrants and dictators in the past, he wanted them reconciled but they made their choice. Everyone makes a choice.

amir jackson said...

Where did Satan get the power to tempt us into all of our sins?
Satan doesn't have the power to tempt us. We tempt ourselves when a thought enters our mind, and we choose to think about it and eventually carry it out. Satan is the cause for bad things that happen in our lives, or certain ideas put right in front of us to tempt. Nobody knows how Satan works, but he can't necessarily tempt us. He can probably only manipulate a series of events that'll discourage you and tempt you into doing something sinful. But he cannot force a thought into our minds.

amir jackson said...

He got that power from God, he allows him a certain amount of power. But there are things that God will not allow

amir jackson said...

24. If faith in God is worth anything, shouldn’t he want us to reach him through our reason rather than unthinkingly through blind faith?

Not necessarily. Blind faith is just faith with no knowledge of the person we have faith. Which is the weakest form of faith. Faith is built upon the knowledge of the person we have faith in, God. While any form of faith is good, trying to reach him with our reason is following a secular mindset. Using reason b4 faith is basically trying to prove he exists b4 believing. You can't prove an invisible being to exist. You have to have faith he exists. The only proof you'll find is the world around us, morality, the universe and science has a false answer for it. That's why faith is important, and reason should only be used within the constraints of the Bible.

amir jackson said...

5. Why would God need 122 “constants” to provide life on Earth?
(“constants” are precise scientific conditions in which if altered slightly [like the Earth being just 1% closer to the sun], life on Earth would cease)

He didn't need the constants. He put them there. It's most likely to show that he literally put the Earth in a perfect position. And that there's a self existing creator, and not a self existing universe that randomly put us in perfect position. How often does random chance end up with perfect result? Pretty Much never

amir jackson said...

21. If God chooses to allow the devil to continue to exist, knowing he is going to tempt us into sin, isn’t God making the devil his agent?

Not exactly. God hates the devil. The devil is everything that God hates. He allows the devil to tempt us so we can realize we need God. It's not a job that God gave Satan to do, it's Satan's choice to tempt us. However, when we accept Christ, all the things that the devil does to us will eventually work out for good if keep faith in God. God makes bad situations caused by the devil to have a good result. So no, the devil is not God's agent. He's literally doing this to kill our faith and taunt God. But God turns our bad into good, and makes Satan's attempt worthless.

amir jackson said...

19. How can a human being believe he has the capacity to love an imponderable, dream-like abstraction such as God more than his own wife and children?

He may seem dream-like and imponderable, but with matured faith, you begin to see him manifested in your life by his works. Even if you don't love Him as much your family. He still loves you more than you love them. Wouldn't our response to that be to put Him above all else?


If our family is sinful and hates God, you have to turn away from them. You can't love them more than God because you know what they're doing is wrong. Siding with the wrong when there's an obvious right would be foolish. They make mistakes, God doesn't, God created you, they didn't, you created your children, God allowed you to. God died for your sins, they didn't. They reject the person that did all this, then you have to side with God. Because they're unjust and ignorant.

There's the reason why, now here's the reason how. Believers have the Holy spirit, and the Holy Spirit allows us to love God as much as he loves us.

amir jackson said...

#7 Why did Moses write in the third person in the first five books of the Old Testament?

It's highly speculated that some books in the bible were written by people that personally knew the supposed author. This would answer your question, that someone was actually writing about Moses, rather than Moses writing about himself.

amir jackson said...

Why did God contradict himself in Genesis by creating the sun and moon on the fourth day [Gen. 1: 16-19] to provide light during the day and night when he already created light for the day and night on the first day [Gen. 1: 3-5]?

He didn't contradict himself. When he created light, he created the good in the world, the sense of good. The essence of goodness was brought into the world, not literal light. Then he created literal light which was the sun and so on.

amir jackson said...

28. Why does the Bible say, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], “love is not jealous” [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and “God is jealous” [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously].


In all truth, God is not jealous. That is just the only word that can describe God's feelings. Jealousy is seen as coveting something that isn't rightfully yours. But what God is "jealous" of is rightfully his. Which is why it says God is jealous. But what word exists that means coveting something that's yours. The word jealous is the closest thing we get to that. And it can also be seen as a way that helps us understand God's exact feelings about that occasion.

amir jackson said...

15. Why was Jesus’ death on the cross the ONLY way sins could be forgiven?

Because all sin is against an infinite God, therefore derseving an infinite punishment. Who could pay an infinite punishment but an infinite person himself? He basically canceled out the need for an infinite punishment, by dying as an infinitely righteous person. Since the result of sin is death, and Jesus never sinned, and can be said that he would've lived forever if he didn't sacrifice himself.

Let me try to summarize because this is difficult to answer. We can't pay an infinite debt because we aren't infinite beings. Since Jesus is an infinite being, he paid the debt for us. You can't pardon a sin because that would be unjust judgment. But when you accept that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin, which is death. Then sin can be pardoned.

Now here's the thing. It wasn't the ONLY way. God is an infinite being, meaning he has infinite ideas, can create infinite plans, can create infinite colors, and has infinite emotions. Surely there were other ways, this way was just the perfect way, and the best way.

amir jackson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seth B. said...

These are not hard questions. All of them can be answered. We sinned first, that is why God is not intervening. This is our punishment for defying him. He didn't make us as mindless robots! He made us with the option to choose. THEN he created death and all bad things. Before lions slept with sheep. But after the animals were enemies.

Anonymous said...

You say that Gods jealousy is just protecting what does belong to him but, if like any true lover, God is jealous when anyone or anything else steals the devotion of His beloved, in a good sense of the word but, isn't it not his once someone or something steals it? We maybe his but, once our thinking changes that is no longer with him and is technically being the bad sense of jealous.

Anonymous said...

Just shut up! Have you even ever met an atheist? I have and they are nothing like that! You are obviously realizing the flaws in your own god and are now putting down others for sharing their opinion on things. You say atheists find no reason to be sorry for their actions when the boundary is crossed but, plenty of other people of different beliefs do horrific deeds and find no reason to be sorry for it! So please just shut up!!!

Real Truth Online said...

"You say that Gods jealousy is just protecting what does belong to him but, if like any true lover, God is jealous when anyone or anything else steals the devotion of His beloved, in a good sense of the word but, isn't it not his once someone or something steals it? We maybe his but, once our thinking changes that is no longer with him and is technically being the bad sense of jealous."

Your mistake is that youre comparing god to a mortal human---and god is not supposed to possess petty human emotions. God is supposed to be "perfect" and without comprehension, yet youre comparing him to something that is imperfect and CAN be comprehended?? Wow.

Real Truth Online said...

Seth B. You say there are no hard questions and they can all be answered, but I noticed you didnt answer ONE of them...not one

Real Truth Online said...

Amir, you said "In all truth, God is not jealous." So, the Bible LIED to us??? The Bible SAYS he is!!

Real Truth Online said...

Amir, in response to my question:

"Why did God contradict himself in Genesis by creating the sun and moon on the fourth day [Gen. 1: 16-19] to provide light during the day and night when he already created light for the day and night on the first day [Gen. 1: 3-5]?"

You said this:

"He didn't contradict himself. When he created light, he created the good in the world, the sense of good. The essence of goodness was brought into the world, not literal light. Then he created literal light which was the sun and so on"

This is what Gen. 1: 3-5 says:

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Your answer is BS, he WAS talking about LITERAL light, thats why the scripture ends with "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day". It makes no sense for god to create NON literal light and then end the scripture by describing LITERAL light. Why mention evening and morning if he's NOT talking about literal light?

Youre a buffoon.

Real Truth Online said...

Amir, in response to my question:

"#7 Why did Moses write in the third person in the first five books of the Old Testament?"

You said:

"It's highly speculated that some books in the bible were written by people that personally knew the supposed author. This would answer your question, that someone was actually writing about Moses, rather than Moses writing about himself."

BS. It is common knowledge among just about every religious historian that Moses wrote the first 5 books...plus, the bible itself SAYS he's the writer.

Papa Giorgio said...

"Julius Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars and the Civil Wars in the third person. Xenophon wrote Anabasis in the third person. Jesus himself even spoke in the third person (Jn. 17:3; c.f. Daniel 7 and the book of Ezra). Moses probably wrote these accounts in the third person to let future Israelites know who was the central leader of Israel. An impersonal 'I' wouldn’t explain this."

Also, with the "toledoths" of Genesis, it is a commonly held belief that Moses was an editor of Genesis, not its author.

Also, what is being essentially referenced here is the now debunked "Documentary Hypothesis" (the JEDP theory) from early German Biblical criticism.

TOLEDOTHS -- CREATION.COM
http://creation.com/who-wrote-genesis-are-the-toledoth-colophons

DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS -- UK APOLOGETICS
http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

Real Truth Online said...

But how did Moses write about his own death???

Papa Giorgio said...

We are still espousing the JEDP theory in the question. The short answer is that it is not unreasonable to assume Joshua wrote the last 8-verses. (Eight verses.) Also, God does have foreknowledge.... so in the theistic universe (like the Marvel universe), it is possible for Moses to have foreseen his death by God's grace.

=============
OBJECTION #2: How could Moses record his own death in Deuteronomy 34?

CLAIM: Critics point out that Moses could not have written all of the Pentateuch, because the end of Deuteronomy (ch. 34) records his death.

RESPONSE: This is not a new objection. Obviously, readers of the Bible have made this observation for millennia. Proponents of Mosaic authorship have always assumed that a later author added this final chapter after Moses died. Because the book of Joshua is a clear continuation of the story, it is argued that Joshua probably wrote Moses’ obituary. Likewise, the prophet after Joshua probably wrote his obituary. Admitting that the last chapter was a later addition is different than saying that all the chapters were later additions or redactions. This objection really throws the baby out with the bathwater. We cannot judge the theory of Mosaic authorship based on the last chapter of the Pentateuch. Instead, we need to base our judgment on all of the collective chapters combined.

A GREAT ARTICLE: http://www.evidenceunseen.com/authorship-of-exodus/
=============

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't God just correct us? Is it that fucking hard to show him self for 5 seconds???

Papa Giorgio said...

There are braille Bibles, audio Bibles, yearly Bibles, etc. The Romans road takes a bit more than 5-seconds -- I realize we have one-hour photo, half-hour pizza, email vs. "snail" mail... but you may have to invest more than 5-seconds. Questions philosophers have asked (and answered) since Grecian times are important ones, and each new generation has to tackle these important questions anew.

I put together a slightly more in-depth "Romans Road," here: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/keeping-our-christian-identity-though-sedars/

In other words, He did correct us in the Person of Christ.

Anonymous said...

#1. God does not intervene with some of our own troubles. He lets us makes decisions, for he gave us a mind. Sometimes we have to work through our own troubles, in order to do good you HAVE to put it into action.

#29. God didn't speak an ark for he wanted Noah to build it. He wanted Noah to build to show the people that something will be coming. Also, I believe God wanted to see how much Noah trusted in him. In the end, Noah did build it, proved that there was some hope.

For what are we? Made in the image of God, he sent his son to die to give us the choice. To live a life of disgrace and sin or to show God's love and mercy upon those who need it.

Anonymous said...

#13. If God didn't kill the massive amounts of people, then that one sin would of become one after another leaving us in a more sinful place. He also wanted to show his
power, also, then there wouldn't be stories.
God is a jealous God, for He loves us. We were made in his image to give him glory and praise.

ακέφαλο καρφί said...

Seeing as you are evidently atheist, how did two particles create a huge explosion?
Where did the particles come from?
How was life created?
See if you can answer those questions.

Abdihakim said...

Islam answers most of these questions(excluding the ones referring to the bible).

Anonymous said...

Like a true lover his love really is unconditional. We may turn our backs to him, but his love for us remains. We are his children. This makes him a "jealous God" in a good sense of the word.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the 21st century, where cyber warfare rages. This is basically an all out war. Territory changes back and forth, it seems like it's a never ending war.

As a Christian (Ironically), I can't even answer 1 question. And as a Christian (Ironically), the answers here made by other fellow Christians makes me feel embarrassed as a Christian.

Most Christians are just plain annoying. Hypocrites in my church annoys the hell out of me. I hate the community.

I'm just gonna follow my blind faith and stay out of those hypocrites.

As for agnostics and atheist, I'm open minded. Feel free to argue with me.

Papa Giorgio said...

First, I do not believe you are a Christian... ironically. Because even a nominal Christian would at the least quote a Scripture. "I'm just gonna follow my blind faith..." Please. Talk about cheap... and being a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Look m8,
I can't quote a scripture. Because, the guy who gives all the questions, he wants our POV out of the bible. Which means, all the contents of the bible seem meaningless to him.

Just like you did, sir. You gave an argument quoting from the bible, then he gave you a counter argument. You lost. Then, you give him again, then you lost again. And again, and again, and again...

Oh, yeah, you need to realize that most, NOT all Christians are hypocrites. Please, you're embarrassing, to me and the whole Christian community, and to the whole world. Atheists and agnostics would laugh behind our backs, looking at us as if we were idiots.

Anonymous said...

Your will be done. This line keeps on banging my head. Does this mean, we have no choice but to submit ourselves to God? In whatever we do, bad or evil, we have no chance to make things possible. Because His will be done.

David Garcia said...

All these questions try to disprove God as if hes not perfect assuming thats a bad God. As an atheist how are you coming up with this idea of morality? So what if God kills why is it bad it makes suffering so what its harmful so what in an atheistic world view there is no morality dont believe it from me a christian here is a very well known atheist scientist richard hawkins The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. It is often said atheism is like god putting you on his lap in order for you to slap his face. Atheism doesnt give morality only a christian world view does and thats the very thing you borrow to argue against the one you borrowed it from. You have to ask yourself are you looking for truth or are you looking for comfort. Cs lewis put it like this If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. Ask god to reveal himself to you if you look for him with your heart you will find him if such a prayer is asked with your heart and not just to say o i tried the whole christian thing and it did not work. As well as so much evidence pointing towards christ being the truth hundreds of fulfilled prophecies future events predicted and all the historical records. You have to seriously ask yourselves are you looking for truth or are you looking for comfort...

Anonymous said...

When there are questions that could not be answered, I always hear preachers say that our way of thinking is not God's way of thinking because he thinks with a higher purpose and since we are not Him, we won't be able to fully understand things especially the evil things that happen around us or to us.

Isn't God a hoax. Our minds created God out of these unanswered questions. The bible may be a documentation or a proof that God exists but isn't it also a proof that he is a tyrant and a sadist?

Since he is an all-knowing and an all-powerful God, I am somehow convinced that we are his pieces of chess. He made us for amusement. He gave us the gift of choice so that we can choose to disobey Him and have us experience these things. If there is a God, then he is the one and only source of evil.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with the Anonymous above. If God exists, then he is a massive dick and we are all part of his sandbox. Evil is only allowed to exist because he allowed it. There is no possible way I could ever become a Christian if in order to be a Christian you have to bend over and pray and lick his boots.

Papa Giorgio said...

Exactly!

➤ Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man “wishes” to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster, 1996), 113-114.

Anonymous said...

I found this via a google search, and noticed several things wrong in it. In case others find it the same way I did, though it's an old page, here's some basic responses.

Note that I actually agree with part of the premise (apparently brought out in the comments) that MOST Christians don't know very complete and satisfying answers to these questions. Unfortunately, that's in part because Larry (hopefully that's how I should refer to him, and it's short so...) is intentionally choosing very complex issues and seeming to demand very short answers. But these serious issues need to be judged by considering as many factors as possible, and the omniscient God actually judges ALL factors.

"31 Questions Christians Can't Answer"

Note that the final question and much of the anti-Christianity comments embrace a "letter of the law" approach to interpreting things like the meanings of jealousy. When the Bible is being judged, the assumption is the "how it looks to me" interpretation is what matters, and not the intent of the author. But when the Larry's OWN statements are questioned by others, apparently it's HIS intent that he wants to rule. That's inconsistent. And here, the APPARENT intent is that NO Christians can answer these questions logically.

Haven't read either books mentioned in the intro. For what it's worth, from the more informed Christian apologists I follow, Josh McDowell does not have a good reputation. And most of the questions you raised are standard fare for the "new atheists".

"They are in no particular order of importance."

Four of them actually are much more foundational than others, so I'm going to answer those first, then address some underlying facts that are important to most of the others.

"They are just random questions that I am sure every Christian would ignore."

At least with the one I'll start with, this is blatantly false! And MANY Christians address these things. You show your ignorance here! And notice this isn't consistent with only meaning average Christians.

"24. If faith in God is worth anything, shouldn't he want us to reach him through our reason rather than unthinkingly through blind faith?"

This is a blatant strawman as far as biblical Christianity goes.

Unfortunately, it's fair to bring it up because many Christians do have the misconception that faith is supposed to be blind, but the Bible teaches the opposite ("Come, let us reason together", "test all things", "sound doctrine" etc.), and many like me believe because of the evidence, especially everything surrounding the resurrection. And it is NOT reasonable to present it as something "every Christian would ignore", especially because it's so central.

This is vital here, because the position is that we can know God is holy, just, and especially relevant to these questions, omniscient, because the Bible is evidentially verified to really be inspired by God and inerrant (and we use the rules of the source languages and cultural context to learn what it meant to say etc.).

Whether the "appeal to moral outrage" challenges work or not depends mainly on whether God really is omniscient, thus in turn on whether the Bible really is true, so reason is VITAL.

Agnostics are actually somewhat in the right here that it's okay for them not to believe when they are ignorant of this evidence, but it's also not okay to wallow in ignorance forever on issues that matter like this or act like if a Christian doesn't give it to you, you can't possible learn it. You owe it to yourself to do your own research too.

[1/12; continued... Sorry it got so long, but then a lot was raised to discuss.]

Anonymous said...

(Most agnostics who refuse even after being told it, when questioned, reveal that they embrace all kinds of illogical approaches that easily explain their refusal.)

"9. If God is all-knowing, why did God ask Adam where he was and whether he had eaten fruit in Genesis?"

First, notice that your attempt to argue against omniscience is here based on what the TEXT says.

But you're IGNORING that the text GOES ON to immediately show that God has easy access to knowledge a normal being would not, about future events. This makes it obvious that the question is rhetorical. The purpose logically CANNOT be to inform God of something, therefore the purpose MUST be for the benefit of created beings in some way. And EVERYTHING later in the Bible is written in context of this, so all future cases of God asking questions MUST be interpreted as rhetorical.

This is even clearer a little later when God asks Cain where Abel is, but then reveals that he knows.

The same appears to be going on in Genesis 3; neither Adam nor Eve's answers were very good, as they just shifted the blame. It also gave us a record of more detail about what was going on in their heads that we probably wouldn't gave gotten otherwise.

So, the TEXT clearly teaches that God IS omniscient (or at least, lack of omniscience is certainly NOT a good assumption to make here, and later passages in the Bible do explicitly confirm omniscience). So that leaves us with the question of whether there is evidence that the text is reliable, and I and many others have found that there is, for a variety of reasons, as mentioned above.

15. Why was Jesus' death on the cross the ONLY way sins could be forgiven?

You get points here in my book (although this is also a standard question). Most Christians fail to find good answers here. And it's complicated, but I think a big part of it is fairly straightforward; as finite, linear-time beings, we need to experience things for them to really sink in.

Also, God is perfectly holy and omniscient, so whatever is the best way for important things about this to sink in does end up as the only thing he can do, not out of a lack of POWER but because he knows that all things considered that's the best approach, and he cannot do anything less than that.

And the best way for us to experientially understand the lengths to which God would go because he loves us, a torturous death is probably going to be at the top of the list (but as usual, there's probably MANY other factors, and at least one is well-known, that it also let him prove that he can DEFEAT death, which obviously matters directly to all of us).

"2. If God were all-powerful, why wouldn�t he create humans who could appreciate good without having evil to compare it with?"

Here's the fourth key question. Basically, this is not really logically possible. The sense of the word "knowledge" in the name of the forbidden tree is "experience" (hence the above focus on that concept), and it makes sense -- to really understand why sin is wrong, we really have to have "experiential knowledge" of what its natural consequences would be. If God just miraculously intervened to stop ALL consequences (as people often argue he should), we would never REALLY understand that.

The only alternative is that we don't actually experience the evil, but that he downloads the full knowledge of what it would be like into our brains, or maybe has us experience it in something like a holodeck (from Star Trek TNG for those who don't know). But then it would actually be functionally the SAME as just plain experiencing it, so he might as well just do that.

So, we have to live in a world where evil happens, but what about the cases where God DOES miraculously intervene? Why does he in some cases?

[2/12]

Anonymous said...

The one you started with is actually also foundational and builds directly on the above:

"1. Why hasn't God intervened on the tyrants throughout history to prevent far worse atrocities than in the Old Testament days in which he did intervene?"

The next key is that miracles within the era of the fallen world serve a very specific purpose (mainly) and it is NOT directly about judging tyrants or the like. Those are important things, but there's something else far more important and that's our eternal destinies. Without revelation from God, we would never really know what's needed to be saved. And, AS YOU ADMITTED, REASON IS VITAL.

This is the key here. In order for us to know that a book's revelation is really from him, he had to verify it using miracles, things that other beings could not do, centered on its human authors, so we could tell the difference between them and any random human with a claim.

This is verified in some cases through prophecy, from books matching styles of ancient times but predicting highly specific events in later times like many of the messianic prophecies that Jesus could not have fulfilled on purpose, like those around his birth and events after and surrounding his death.
Involved with these and other types are also the "telling silence" from opponents. To be fair, there's a bit of a "written by the victor" concern there, but overall it really isn't plausible that these miraculous claims could have been lies. The books in question are too close to their claimed time periods and their claims would have been debunked by people of that time period most likely so they never would have taken off.

So, in a sinful world, he CAN'T just (usually) work miracles for other purposes. They must be restricted to this purpose, and a few related ones like setting the stage for the atonement (many of the miracles Israel experienced come into play there).

A clarification: This refers mainly to public, obvious miracles. Subtle miracles for healing might be done, but if so, we won't be able to test them, because the canon is closed (if I understand correctly). We already have enough for testing in the Bible and it passes the test; we don't need more.

Now, when an inspired author or another such purpose is involved, God may choose healings or judgments miraculously out of mercy, love, and justice, but they aren't the primary concern.

Note too that normally apparently he intends natural results to be sometimes judgments, according to countless statements in the Bible, but normally we also don't have access to his confirmations of this, so we shouldn't speculate except when obvious biblical principles are involved. So, Hitler being fought by the Christianized West (AKA America, Britain, etc.) is in a sense God judging him. But we can't confirm that things like a storm that would hamper an evil army are necessarily intended as judgment since "God sends rain on the good and the bad".

"3. If God were all-perfect and all-powerful, why would he do such a poor job and create such an imperfect world with its deadly earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc?"

Here the typical Christian answer is needed, buts need to be understood in light of the above (and more; this isn't a fully exhaustive answer): That these things are deadly is a result of our sin. Yes, God allowed our sin, because all things considered he knew that was best. But the fact remains that our sin was the step that triggered these things becoming deadly.

Whether or not there WERE hurricanes (or would have been) without the Fall, I don't know. I doubt significant quakes or floods would have been the case, but storm activity perhaps. But evidently none of it could be fatal because God would have been miraculously preserving everybody (as with the sandals of the Israelites in the 40 years' wandering).

[3/12]

Anonymous said...

And when we sinned, he withdrew that protection as the original humans contractually agreed (and we would have too).

Note that the above limitations on miracles only apply within the second era of the world, not the "very good" but short-lived original era or the perfect (in heaven anyway) eternal era of the new creation later. There were probably biochemical mechanisms that aided eternal life and will again but due to entropy ultimately eternal life needs to draw on the power of the infinite God.

"4. If God is all-perfect, how could he, and why would he create such extremely imperfect human beings to occupy this world?"

The above considerations have answered this basically, mainly the need for us to experience a world mixed with evil for a time (or some of us) to truly understand why sin is wrong. There's a lot more I could add, but this is getting long.

"5. Why would God need 122 'constants' to provide life on Earth?"

This is more of a physics question than a theological one. Evidently there are mathematical reasons why a universe would need them, assuming that's the right number. It seems way on the low side to me, but okay.

"6. If God could create the universe by the wave of his hand or the utterance of a command, why not make Earth dependent on nothing to sustain life?"

Both parts of this are wrong. He doesn't create by either means, though he could wave his hand and then create, and we do have his intent recorded before much of his creative acts. And it isn't logical for something to need nothing to sustain it! (Regardless of its origins.)

You're probably falling for the misconception here that omnipotence could make (for example) illogical things, but all informed Christians agree it means the power to do anything logically possible.

"7. Why did Moses write in the third person in the first five books of the Old Testament?"

There were three traditional approaches.

Apparently the most preferred was the one the Lord uses in the first account (long story behind what was authored by who, but that's my view), which is for the author's direct actions to be "oddly censored." This was a very concise way to specify when the author was doing something. And John 1 shows that this is how at least he interpreted Genesis 1-2:3; the Word/Lord (pre-incarnate Jesus) was the one doing the creating, so the account is "shy" about mentioning that step in most cases (though not for humans).

Moderns usually miss this and this has led to the "speaking into existence" misconception. Actually it's that the Lord is the main Person of the Trinity who did the creative acts, so authorial humility is used to show this (clarified by the signature ending the short account in 2:4, which cites the Lrod).

Would this be a good fit for the accounts of Moses' life?

No! It works fine for short sections like Gen 1+ and sparingly in Mark and John, and a few "a certain person" passages maybe in the OT, but Moses's actions are all over the place in his journal. But by his time, for humans, the second-preferred tradition, narrative third person, was already well established as seen in the "book of Adam" and later ones Moses compiled into Genesis. So, he uses that.

The third option was first person. Ezra, for example, uses some of both. Evidently by his time first person had become more socially acceptable.

So, short answer is, Moses writes in the third person because authorial avoidance, the preferred option, would not have been practical, and in their day, the third option was least preferred.

[4/12]

Anonymous said...

"8. How could Moses write about his own death [and beyond] in Deuteronomy 34:10-11?"

He didn't; somebody else did.

Why are you including basics like this if you really wanted to prove that this is a list of things Christians "can't answer"? Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Do you have a fit when you buy a modern book by a particular author and find a foreword from somebody else??

"10. Why did God create mankind at all if in Genesis God said he was sorry he created them?"

Yet another question OFTEN answered! See above about rhetorical statements, and also read up on anthropomorphism (which helps humans relate to him!).

"11. Why did God create human beings to have a sinful nature?
12. If God is all-just, how can he possibly punish mankind for what Adam did?"

These two are tied together if I'm understanding you right, and a lot of factors for this have been mentioned above. Basically, God is omniscient, so he knew it was best to create a kind of lifeform whose members would all make the same mistake as Adam given the chance (and he knew due to all possible other factors that creating us this way is right).

Also, since we are linear-time, finite beings, it's actually normal that the actions of people in the past affect the lives of those in the future.

Parents today must face this same issue, for example. And even one individual's choices will affect that same individual's future. That's just the nature of time.

"13. If God is all-just, why does he punish/kill massive amounts of people throughout the Bible for the sins of one?"

Part of it is the nature of our responsibility to others and cause and effect in a temporal universe like this. Another part is that usually it is NOT just for the sins of ONE.

"God murdered"

God is just, holy, and omniscient, and murder means "unjust killing"; he actually cannot murder. But here's the real question:

Can the Bible explain ALL factors behind any one particular judgment?

NO! There just isn't room!

Most of these questions act as if it should, or as if the inclusion of these actions is supposed to be self-evidently good. No, they aren't. They're ALL in the context of a holy Creator who verifies the reliability of his words.

"70,000 Israelites by inflicting them with disease because one man, David, conducted a census"

There are two accounts of this, and neither really give us much to go on, except that one attributes the cause to Satan, while one attributes it to God (long story behind that part). My impression has always been that David must have planned to launch an unjust war and this census was part of preparations for it. The ones afflicted may have been collateral damage because of the nature of a temporal universe (for which those responsible for the judgment add guilt on judgment day), or they may have been the Israelites who would have support David's unjust war, or "bit of both".

The ambiguity of it I would guess is probably because the justification of it is simply not the point, but rather that David was offered three choices for the judgment, and the one he chose is what happened. The justice of this and similar judgments was already assumed because God's holiness and omniscience were already established long before this, going all the way back to things like Gen 3 and the Cain incident.

[5/12]

Anonymous said...

"God punished Egypt with 10 plagues, which included murdering all male first-born babies because God had a vendetta against Pharaoh [whose heart was hardened by God so that Pharaoh could not release the Israelites even if he wanted to]"

A lot of mistakes here. You're right -- he punished EGYPT, not just Pharoah (because Egypt in general supported Pharoah's persecution of the Israelites), and again, God does not murder.

Those who were below the age of innocence were spared the risk of hell, so the real moral issue is why he lets anybody face that, and that gets into the importance of honor/shame to judgment (and in who gets saved in the OT). Long story. Those above the age would likely be indoctrinated in anti-Israel sentiment so are directly included in judgment.

The heart hardening is a reference to another complex issue that is usually misunderstood by all sides, that of the correct definition of "freewill".

The biblical definition is free to act according to your own internal nature without being overridden by some outside force, but your internal nature is entirely and ultimately caused outside you. And, all outside causes ultimately stem from God's selecting the best all-things-considered setup of the world as discussed above.

So, Calvinists are wrong when they say that you do not choose things (note that not all Calvinists agree with that, though, apparently), and certain anti-Calvinists are also wrong to say that God does not choose it for you. Between the two of them, the sense preferred by Antis is closest to God's heart and his heart ("but you were not willing"), so overall they have it more right. (Because the bad things God "causes" are really logical necessity forcing him to cause them.)

Basically the choices overlap, and this very section is the first obvious one that teaches this because it actually says that BOTH God AND Pharoah hardened Pharoah's heart.

So, if Pharoah HAD wanted to release them, he would have wanted to because God ultimately caused him to want to!

"14. Why did God feel the need to show mankind his love? And why does he need love returned from sinful, wretched mankind?"

First part already answered. Second part... well, it's another one of those "yes and no in different senses" things. In a sense God doesn't NEED love. But in another sense, he created us, so I guess you could say he must have "needed" it to do that. He knows that when we're at our best, we're loyal to him, and that implies loving him. So it's more for our own sakes than his.

"16. Why can't God just wave his hand and destroy the devil?"

He can destroy Satan, but knows he should not.

"17. How infinite can Jesus' love be if for those who reject him as being their savior, he consigns them to an everlasting hell?"

Probably tied up here are the usual misconceptions about hell as literal fire/torture.

That was a cultural extended metaphor for shame; gnashing teeth and wailing were Jewish expressions of shame, not literal pain, and shame would be said to produce anguish/torment; we see that it's poetic by the normal means to do that; contrary imagery; Matthew both calls hell blazing fire and yet also darkness.

But still, its eternality is a fair concern, and I haven't yet found a clear proven answer yet. My guess is that it's important for our choices to be made permanent at death, so those in heaven never need to fear sliding into hell. So it seems natural that it would work both ways.

All that aside, the basic objection doesn't make sense. The only alternatives would be to let them into heaven, which would be unfair for those who accepted God's offer to cleanse them of sin and who are usually tired of the suffering that the sins of the disloyal cause, or to permanently end the unsaved, and it's hard to see how that would be okay.

[6/12]

Anonymous said...

"18. If God is so good, why does he put all of us to death?"

Because there's more to goodness than just flowers and butterflies; there's also justice.

"19. How can a human being believe he has the capacity to love an imponderable, dream-like abstraction such as God more than his own wife and children?"

If a parent can love a child, cannot a child love a parent? We recognize that God created humans, foreknowing everybody, so our love for others overlaps our love for him, and that love also has more to it. By definition, then, it HAS to be greater, if we're in a "right relationship" with him.

"20. Where did Satan get the power to tempt us into all of our sins?"

Ultimately from logical necessity; see above.

"21. If God chooses to allow the devil to continue to exist, knowing he is going to tempt us into sin, isn�t God making the devil his agent?"

In a sense, yeah. Same as God making Joseph's brothers his agents in a sense, intending their evil for good. Doesn't make their evil okay.

"22. How can God be good when he nearly always turns down the praying party when they need him the most?"

He's omniscient, they're not, so if he turns them down, that was NOT what they needed most.

"23. Why do people pray to God after a tragedy like 9/11 or Katrina when they are praying to the party that caused or allowed it?"

That's another complicated one, but remember he causes it in the sense of logical necessity. Anyway, prayer is mainly for our own benefit, improving our relationship with God. It doesn't inform him of things, since he is beyond linear time and omniscient. But God also plans what happens based on everything he knows -- including what prayers we make (which he ultimately caused).

"25. Why did the prophet Isaiah [in Isaiah 7:14], in his foretelling of the birth of Jesus, use the Hebrew word 'almah', which means 'young woman' and not use the word 'betulah', which means 'virgin', when describing Jesus' mother?"

It's been a while since I last reviewed this one, but if memory serves, I believe this was debunked and almah actually does mean virgin. But it actually doesn't matter which primary meaning was in view, because in that culture, a godly "young woman" WAS a virgin.

Also, it's pretty silly to say that the prophecy was that a NON-virgin would have a child!

"26. Why did God contradict himself"

We obviously don't accept that God can or does contradict himself.

"in Genesis by creating the sun and moon on the fourth day [Gen. 1: 16-19] to provide light during the day and night when he already created light for the day and night on the first day [Gen. 1: 3-5]?"

This isn't a contradiction, since the sun is not the only possible source of light. Also, this is yet another commonly answered question; God knew that many cultures would sinfully try to worship the sun, so delaying its creation lessened its value and the account of it could thus serve as a repudiation of those beliefs.

Plus, plants only needed light, not clocks and calendars. Some animals do use cycles involving the moon, so making it the day before the first animals (and two days before humans who would use all of that) makes sense.

[7/12]

Anonymous said...

"27. If God is all-knowing, why did he not know until the very moment in which Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac that Abraham feared God?"

See above about rhetorical questions; same goes for "testing"; it's always about the effects it has on people.

It isn't what God didn't know, but what Abraham didn't really know about himself. Also in this case about something he DID know which was that God had promised Isaac would live long enough to have kids, so Abe knew something else was going on here, but evidently he thought it would be that Isaac would be resurrected.

So by bringing him to that point and stopping him, God actually taught him something vital (in an intensely memorable way, thus highly effective way), that human sacrifice is wrong, and that would have a huge and important effect on his descendants especially since they would live in a land dominated by people who did that all the time.

"28. Why does the Bible say, 'God is love' [1 John 4:8], 'love is not jealous' [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and 'God is jealous' [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously]."

This is a horrible mistreatment of logic -- equivocation! Deductive (formal) reasoning (which those statements were not anyway) REQUIRES that the DEFINITION of the term be the SAME across the entire analysis. But you just cited three completely different authors, and apparently showed shocking levels of ignorance that in ancient languages nearly ALL words had multiple definitions dependant on context (because they had such small vocabularies). As many words still do today.

The debate in the comments mostly centered on this one. But as much as it might feel like a convenient "gotcha", the facts are entirely against you here, Larry. The same applies to many other basic terms like hate/love and evil/good; multiple senses simply WERE used depending on context, whether you like it or not. And all of these are ALSO common answers!

The term translated "evil" for example can have a sense of harm or judgment.

For "jealousy" here, there's two basic ideas.

First, the good sense means "I'm jealous for you to do well", basically. And no, it doesn't in God's case refer to literal human emotions; that's one of countless anthropomorphisms to accommodate to human language. It means that objectively God knows what is best. He DOES, though, understand everything about human emotions, so he can fully relate to them. (They are a "shadow" of what he has.)

Second, the bad sense is an allusion. It doesn't need to specify anything other than that it's a sin to do this, because the allusion is to the original statement in the initial covenant (AKA the "10 Commandments"), which was in the immediate context of theft, adultery, (being jealous for what you should NOT have). This context would be recalled by any Jewish reader. Read up on high context societies!

[8/12]

Anonymous said...

"29. Why did God make Noah build a Titanic-sized boat when God could have simply spoken a boat into existence?"

I have seen this answered only once before, but it is out there. Basically, Noah was willing, so why not build it?

And I'd add to that all the context I've gone over above about how God normally prefers natural means, and handing everything to us on a silver platter is not really among his priorities! Actually, this provided an opportunity to use an even more impressive miracle -- prophecy. And it obviously would have profound effects on Noah, which probably had a lot to do with the post-Flood world not turning out as bad as it could have.

"30. According to Noah's genealogy in Genesis chapter 5, Noah's grandfather, Methuselah, died the exact same year of the flood. Was Methuselah killed in the flood?"

Most interpreters that I've seen assume he died just before this. But if he was still alive, and yet was killed in the Flood, that would mean he refused to go onboard, so would be judged for that rebellion.

"31. Why is it that God is allowed to possess a characteristic [jealousy, in Deut. 4:24 and Exodus 20:5] that the Bible itself denounces in Proverbs 27:4 and 14:30?"

Why are you repeating yourself? See above.


To things in the comments:

The old chestnut about Elisha's bears comes up.

First, they were actually men in their prime; this is a common misconception in a variety of passages like that Isaac is mistaken as a young child by moderns. The emphasis on their youth is probably because of their choice of insult to Elisha, that he's bald (associated with age whether that was the actual reason for his baldness; I don't have a position on that part one way or another).

Second, there were FORTY of them, and they were threatening to kill him.

Remember Elijah had just been "taken up in a whirlwind" and Elisha had enlisted the help of others to search the countryside; word had gotten out that his body wasn't found. This gang evidently had heard about it, and now they're telling Elijah to "go on up". In context, this is obviously a threat on his life. And this kind of mob threat was common in those days, and still happens today.

In other words, it was self-defense.

Third, I've seen it disputed whether "mauled" means to death or not. It seems unlikely; wouldn't they scatter? How would only two bears actually manage to kill 40? The word used allegedly can mean simply injured. Note that the fact that 40 were at least injured probably implies there were actually many more than 40 (so around that number had trouble instantly escaping), but we can't assume so.

[9/12]

Anonymous said...

To the question of dealing with babykillers, that's a big part of why Israel was allowed to go to war against the inhabitants of the land, in judgment for this and similar sins.

But as always, God must balance many factors. One is the management of nature that was humanity's primary purpose within creation, and the Torah elsewhere makes it clear that they will only drive out the violent natives a bit at a time, so they don't try to hold more land than there are Israelites to manage.

You actually also hinted at another factor -- killing babies per se isn't what's wrong. It's doing it without true justification (and modern abortion isn't just, as we have better options now).

Remember God actually ordered the killing of Amalekite children rather than leaving them to starve in the desert. The babies of the Flood had a similar problem; there would be too many to care for (and that would require kidnapping them which is morally questionable at best anyway). But Canaan wasn't killing them out of mercy.



It's encouraging that some claim that they would listen to the good answers.

But that's "puzzling" since most of these have already been answered by Christians long ago, and if you really cared to know the truth, wouldn't you have sought those answers out already? Still, we'll see if you show yourselves to be rational in responses, if any... I wouldn't hold my breath with people who think blatant equivocation is logical... (So this is more for the sake of other Christians who might read this, or other genuinely curious undecideds like what I was for a long time.)




"when it is a Christian that the questions are put to, they are supposed to know the answer, not only mentally, but also in their heart, because it is not just a cognitive issue with them, it is mostly a life-changing event that happened in their heart."

RTO, this is absurd! God doesn't download his omnipotence into Christians' brains. This is an obviously self-serving, arbitary premise. And we are supposed to figure things out logically (see start of my reply); why would that stop at salvation?

"the Bible says "always be ready to give an answer to those who question your faith""

That's obviously an ideal to strive for, and I do, not a promise that you WILL be always ready (that you'll get some kind of a download). The fact that it needed to be commanded shows that it's something we must choose to do.



" Larry have you ever looked up the definition of the name Methuselah? It means "after his death, judgment will come". Look it up."

Please note that's disputed. Another common interpretation is "man of the dart".

[10/12]

Anonymous said...

"IF God was "showing power", he would NOT need the constants at all, he could simply just sustain all balance in the universe with his power alone."

RTO, that's just one factor. I think this approach is a kind of inverted projection. Because atheists are against the supernatural, they assume we must be against the opposite (or God must be).

But in reality, a sane approach has no real pressure either way. I don't really see why constants are relevant to any of this in and of themselves, but whatever is the most logical design for a universe for us to live in, his omniscience is the main factor here. His omnipotence applies equally no matter what; it's the omniscience that is the real key to why he chooses one design over another.

Also, WHY would he "not need the constants"? That looks like a non sequitur.




"joeyeploof.com said...
"For question #1 can you please provide at least one example of an atrocity which God did intervene in in the OT? Also a specific atrocity from history in which He did not?"

Oh yes, three come to mind (atrocities in which God had a hand in)

1. The flood
2. The killing of 42 kids by two bears
3. The 10 plagues of Egypt

Atrocities in which god NOT intervene:

1. 9/11
2. The crusades
3. The holocaust"

Assuming by "intervene" we're talking about a direct intervention miracle, it's not clear whether the first two count. At least the killing of the firstborn of Egypt clearly is one, and most others may be as well, though. But God has a hand in good things regardless of whether direct miracles or the domino-effect omniscient setup of the original universe (which was also done miraculously and is more difficult since it's indirect; a direct miracle is like just knocking over one domino!) are the causes in any example. So the judgments on Al Queda and Hitler would count here.

The crusades are tougher, but historical investigation has shown that they were actually mostly justified responses to Muslim aggression. Atrocities were done by some in the name of this defense, though. I'm not sure if those responsible WERE judged, though maybe further Muslim military responses could be judgments in some cases.

In any case, as explained before, there is no promise that judgments always come in this life, aside from the fact that everybody dies. And miraculous judgments were (probably) off the table in that case.

Also keep in mind the crusades' atrocities were committed in the context of pagan cultures only recently (relatively) having been reformed by Christianity. They were WORSE in the past, and eventually those practices gave way to modern peaceful ways (yeah, we still aren't perfect though, huh?). And those created a culture in which everybody understands that is wrong, which you are drawing from to condemn it. Rightly so, but without Christianity you would not be doing that.



"Where did Satan get the power to tempt us into all of our sins?
Satan doesn't have the power to tempt us. We tempt ourselves when a thought enters our mind, and we choose to think about it and eventually carry it out. Satan is the cause for bad things that happen in our lives, or certain ideas put right in front of us to tempt. Nobody knows how Satan works, but he can't necessarily tempt us."

This may be a good point, amir. I think James says something like that. But I think it's probably both. But regardless of how we're tempted, we are, and that's ultimately due to the logical necessity of (some) experiencing a world of sin and evil to really understand why it's bad.

[11/12]

Anonymous said...

"When he created light, he created the good in the world, the sense of good. The essence of goodness was brought into the world, not literal light. Then he created literal light which was the sun and so on."

Interesting interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that refers to literal light given the evening/morning and daylight/night things. Your idea would fit one of the passages about God's Wisdom being "brought forth" at the start, though. (And light/darkness does often mean what you say here elsewhere.) Maybe it's meant to imply both?



"Your mistake is that youre comparing god to a mortal human---and god is not supposed to possess petty human emotions."

RTO, the Bible itself uses such language, so it's okay for us to anthropomorphize him too, as long as you don't take it as literally saying it's human neurology leading to that. Also, only the sinful version is "petty" anyway, and God is holy, so obviously his version cannot be petty.



"Why doesn't God just correct us? Is it that fucking hard to show him self for 5 seconds???"

The Bible records many times when he did, but that's how time works -- it keeps moving forward.

But actually, even if he appeared to everybody (probably what you meant), that's actually the LOWEST standard of proof, since theoretically still-finite beings like a demon could fake that. That's why the Bible set the standard that when a supposed angel (representing God's message) or an actual theophany appeared, the human was still to ask for a miraculous sign.





"The bible may be a documentation or a proof that God exists but isn't it also a proof that he is a tyrant and a sadist?"

No, because if it's proven, then everything it says needs to be factored, and it teaches he is just and holy, omniscient etc.

I think the real explanation is pretty simple. Like the guy after you said, he doesn't want to submit to God. So, in order to feel good about that, skeptics feel the need to justify themselves.

Easiest way? Make God out to be bad.

So they cherrypick the BIble to make the text appear to argue for that, and then say this must all be just made up because it doesn't fit a good God. Problem is, this is a "what the text says" kind of argument, and the text says he isn't evil and explains in the whole context why he isn't, plus it says that God offers salvation (and provides evidence it is really his Word). The only rational response is to put faith in Jesus and give up these false interpretations of God as evil.

[12/12]

CMAenergy said...

OH BOY I love this
There is complete blindness on the part of the one asking the questions,
Every answer you want comes from whom
YOUR GOD
Not the God that created things, including humans,
The bible has the answers to all your questions, But unfortunately I see your symbolic image is of a Catholic point of view,
Unfortunately you may have been taught by the catholic teachings taught by the papacy, Which are NOT and I say it again NOT taught from the bible
Man has told the God of love he knows more them him, so there is the answer to your questions !! Notice I used plural,
Man said he can do better in everything therefore he is the one controlling things until the harvest of Gods true followers, You have lost the true love of God if you follow and believe you don't understand the questions you posed,

Anonymous said...

The reason that I have a hard time believing is another question that no minister or theologian I have ever asked has been able to answer. If we accept biblical chronology fact, then the creation and the fall of man was around 6000 years ago. Jesus lived and died to redeem mankind around 2000 years ago. Christianity says that the only path to eternal life is through him. What happened to all those poor souls, yes even the great prophets of old, that lived for the first 2/3 of time on this world and had no chance at redemption? Why did God not love them enough to send Jesus a little sooner? How is it just that I have a chance at eternal life just because I was born in AD 1970 and not 1970 BC? I feel so guilty to be so fortunate, and I worry all the time about the millions of people who must have cried out to God in those eons just wishing for what he so freely gives me.

CMAenergy said...

Let's get one thing straight first,
The name Jesus,
Is a given by man, a substitute for his original name of Yeshua or the Hebrew, not a Greek given name (JESUS) as an assumed translation,
Your father and mother gave you a name, They were proud of it, Yet you use anonymous as your name, Do you think that honors them,
It is just as bad as any nick name, But some times we find a reason not to use our name, such is the case as it is called lying, one of the ten commandments.
Therefore can we say we are counted out of the coming kingdom, Possibly but I pray always that he will accept me at his coming should I make it through the tribulation period that we hope will be shortened for those he is calling, and I don't assume even after I was called by him, I still have to submit my spirit to asking him for his guidance and to do his will 24/7 should he not accept me and I be martyred this time, Because he says many of his followers will die this time going though the tribulation,

Your question about some soles who will or may not make it into the kingdom of or from our past, God does say he will bring them with him at his coming, at his resurrection, Those I believe will be part of the 144,000 that most do not understand, And then after he comes and in the millennium, there will be people born again (life will continue) and taught the way of life through Yeshua or Jesus and will have another chance at following him. Please do not feel guilty about those soles, God put them there for our benefit so we an see our future and what the actual leaders of society are doing to his world and his people, That is especially true of false religious teachers, and there is many of them.
I hope this has answered some of your question.
I use my research name for my identity, C.M.A, energy stands for constant magnetic acceleration energy a topic that has eluded the most brilliant of mind, And God said through his son Yeshua all things are possible,

CMAenergy said...

I cannot believe some of these questions and how simple they are to answer, Firstly I have to say this,
And I'm pointing the finger at the persons who started this site, Especially if you can't answer them, You have to be an assumed person who either believes in him or herself and has not studied the bible enough or asked the right person, and if you have you probably keep not the true commandments, especially the forth, where he says if you love me keep holy my Sabbath's plural because there is more then one Sabbath.
Now I'm going to answer your first question which will answer most of your other questions, It is the nature of people to assume they know what they are doing and obviously consider a child, when he or she says I can do it on my own, Ask yourself what happens ?
Man is a damn fool who told God they know better and ignored all of his true commandments, Just look at society and their religious fumbling's, They keep not his Sabbaths but rather keep his traditions,
If you can't see what I'm saying to you, it's because someone has blocked your thoughts so you can't see, Man said he knows better then the real God of life and love, That is why the Papacy has said they have the rights to change times and laws,
Sunday keeping s breaking God's forth commandment, The Papacy instituted Sunday worship, and they also implemented Easter and Xmas both are pagan traditions, And no where can you find this in the bible,
I hope this will answer the majority of your questions, If not I feel sorry for you,

Anonymous said...

You chastise me for not using my name after you don't use yours. That pretty much told me all I needed to know about you. Like most Christians, you like to judge others but can't see your own faults, like not understanding Christianity at all. I've asked this question of country ministers and Doctors of Theology, and they agree that all souls before the resurrection are damned. Yet they cannot answer my question as to why. The entire premise of the religion is based on this. There is no way to the father except through the son. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that those who believe in him may live. I've been in church for thirty years of my life, and I obviously know more about the religion than you. I'm looking for honest answers not rationalizations that are the antithesis to the very foundation of the religion!

CMAenergy said...

I did not mean to offend you, or chastise you, it's obvious you are, because your thinkng is telling some thing else other then to try to listen deeply in what some one else is trying to say to you, no one is calling you down, it is that in your own mind, that one is not wanting to try to understand what is going on and being said, but to try to see if you could see what it is that will answer your questions

When someone asks a question and another answers, does that mean no mater what is said, does a wise man take offence because they had asked the question an an answer came back that maybe does not suit what it is that was asked, shame on you, Try to understand there is more then one way to skin a cat, Now you attacked me, and said I know little of the word of God, I am a simple person, yes but with a very good education in one field as expressed before, If you asked me about why I used CMA energy, I would have told you, It's simple to answer and you would maybe understand, I have been researching this field since Jan 1980, and without funds except what I put into it, and about 15 hours day, and in the last several years I wanted to raise funds for my research and that was part of my insignia or what ever you wanted to call it at the time, and because I was to lazy to revert back to my name, it has stuck with me,

And because since I was a child, I have always had a handicap, I have trouble remembering things that are mundane, so in school I was a flunky, but when I started my education in electronics in the mid sixties, I could not be beaten, so when it comes to remembering bible text, I could not quote you barely any thing, But ask me about morals as the bible teaches, that's a different story, Try to realise some people are good at one thing and another something else, I can figure things out if I want to, but don't ask me how I id it, I have a very short or limited recall, of God, But I do know he has set times and laws we must obey with love in our hearts,
You tell me you know more about the bible then me, That's fine to be able to repeat or quote from the bible, but to live accordingly to Gods law is another thing,
If you know the bible, then would you say the new testament is the same as the old testament but said in a different way, If you think it's not, then I feel sorry for you, because they are both one and the same, And Yeshua came only to do away with the old Mosaic laws and that which is sacrificing of animals. He said if you love me keep my commandments,

Now I wrote to your comment because it came to me out of where I don't remember how I got to your website, I don't know either, but your answer ended up in my email box, but thought maybe I could answer your dilemma, Which morally seems simple to understand.
I suspect if you know the bible and are having difficulty with that first question

CMAenergy said...

This is the rest of what I tried to say to you

Now if you take what I said earlier and apply what it is I said below it should become self evident to your answers,
God treats you as how you want to be treated,if your stubborn and won't listen, he lets you do your thing, That's what the church said to Yeshua, or God that they know more then him, so God dropped out of the picture, until the time of the very end when he will come back, and the majority of people think there is a rapture going to take them out of the tribulation that is coming, Don't believe it, since the father was scorned, he will keep out of this until the last second, when every one realises their mistake following Satan

Now does the bible say that there is someone or a church that thinks it will change times and laws
The answer is yes, If you studied it you know where to find that.
Now when you have someone as big as the Catholic church saying it can change times and laws That's saying you are better then God, So any good person or spirit will step aside and let them do their thing,
You should know what that is like, since it seems you won't listen to what I have told you,
Go check it on line and see for yourself, ask the question which church changed the day of rest and why.
You will find it was done about 335 AD. during the reign of Constantine, And he is mentioned in the bible.
Anyone who thinks they are better then God is a fool. (( The Catholic church )) Now you will see in the near future that the Papacy will present a man of sin to take the place of Yeshua or Jesus and the majority will follow him,
Until the man of sin be taken away God will not intervene. God has turned his back on this world and wants them to see what it's like when you live without the real God of love in your life,
I was called with a loud and clear voice and at the time I knew nothing
I must ask, do you go to church on Sunday, if so they hide the truth from all believers

Candy Smith said...

If God were all-perfect and all-powerful, why would he do such a poor job and create such an imperfect world with its deadly earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc?



This isn't a difficult question at all to answer!! God did make a good creation! You can see that by reading the first chapter of Genesis!! It's there, maybe U should learn to read it!! He did not create the world as it is now. That is stupid. Once he has made Adam and Eve, he told them not to do something and they both disobeyed! He punished them. Every since, people have been sinners and have disobeyed God, so therefore, the reason why all of those things exist, is not because God created the world like that, because makes no sense, but it is because of sin!!1

CMAenergy said...

Candy Smith
Obviously you don't study the bible if you did the answer would be very simple, Open your ears please and pay close attention to what I say,
This will be an answer to all these questions,

When a person (a human being or religious body) says they know more then their father. Things happen, The church mentioned in the bible is described as the great whore Now pay attention to this, They told God who wrote this by his followers in the bible, The great whore will think to change times and laws.,

Is there a church that said this, YES !
The Catholic church said this and today is the leading cause of all things, since God has backed away from this world and said you do your think and see what happens.
Now I've given you the answer, If your the one who makes the rules in your family and some one does not listen what happens when you let them do it without guidance ?