{"id":17043,"date":"2022-06-06T07:26:17","date_gmt":"2022-06-06T11:26:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=17043"},"modified":"2022-06-24T07:35:19","modified_gmt":"2022-06-24T11:35:19","slug":"3801-3850","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=17043","title":{"rendered":"3801-3850"},"content":{"rendered":"

(3801) The divine council<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are hints in early Jewish scripture that there existed a belief in a divine council, or a group of gods that governed the world. The first is in Genesis, when God become concerned about a tower that was being built\u00a0 and uses the pronoun ‘us’ instead of ‘I’:<\/p>\n

Genesis 11:5-7<\/p>\n

Then the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men were building. And the LORD said, \u201cIf they have begun to do this as one people speaking the same language, then nothing they devise will be beyond them. Come, let Us go down and confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another\u2019s speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/v5usem\/whos_the_us_in_genesis_117\/<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s a rather standard example of the so-called ‘divine council’. That is, Elohim (often, by the point of the writing of this text, synchretized with Yahweh), addressing lesser gods of the Canaanite pantheon. Such a council is described explicitly in several passages, such as at the beginning of Job, or in Psalm 82:1, or in 1 Kings 22:19\u201323, in which we can actually witness a trial by said council.<\/p>\n

This represents additional evidence that monotheism is a theology that evolved over time and did not exist at all in early Jewish tradition. Eventually, the Jews settled on Yahweh as being the only god in existence. Then the Christians came along and reintroduced polytheism by making Jesus a god and also introduced the never-before-heard-of \u2018Holy Ghost\u2019 as a third god. The Bible tracks this evolution from a divine council, then to a singular god, and finally to a trinity [Note: The trinity is actually extra-biblical, though it can be quasi-defended by liberally interpreting several scriptures (some of which might be <\/a>interpolations)].<\/p>\n

(3802) Epicurean Paradox<\/strong><\/p>\n

The following diagram sheds light on the problem of evil as it relates to God’s properties as alleged by Christianity:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

There still are no good answers to this dilemma, though apologists over the centuries have tried. To an objective mind, there are really only two possibilities- that the Christian god has an evil streak or he doesn’t exist. A third possibility- that God is not omnipotent solves this problem but it creates even greater problems regarding how people are to be judged for heaven or hell (because that requires an ability to literally read their minds, as what they say or do may cover up a disbelief that lies in their inner <\/a>consciousness).<\/p>\n

(3803) Abraham murdered Isaac<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is evidence that the (obviously fictional) story of Abraham killing his son, Isaac, in accord with God\u2019s command (as it now exists in the Bible) was modified from the original, which had Abraham completing the murder (actually killing Isaac). The interjection of the angel to stay the execution was likely added because the infanticide was later seen as being rather unseemly. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.timesofisrael.com\/when-abraham-murdered-isaac\/<\/a><\/p>\n

When he first came to believe he had discovered how the Biblical forefather Isaac died, Bible scholar Tzemah Yoreh says he went into mourning.<\/p>\n

\u201cI literally sat shiva for him, for the forefather I had lost, and for the Abraham who could perpetrate such a thing,\u201d said Yoreh, who was then just 21.<\/p>\n

The Biblical story we have inherited is not the original story, Yoreh believes. Using a variation of a well-known approach to Biblical scholarship, he sees hints of a bloodier version of Isaac\u2019s binding that he finds too convincing to ignore.
\nIn the earliest layer of the Biblical text, Yoreh believes, Isaac was not rescued by an angel at the last moment, but was in fact murdered by his father, Abraham, as a sacrifice to God.<\/p>\n

One eye-opening hint at what he believes is the original story lies in Genesis 22:22. Previously, in verse 8, Abraham and Isaac had walked up the mountain together. But in verse 22, only Abraham returns.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo Abraham returned unto his young men [waiting at the foot of the mountain], and they rose up and went together to Beersheba,\u201d the text relates.<\/p>\n

That strange contradiction, Yoreh says, may be why a few ancient midrashim, or rabbinic homilies, also assumed Isaac had been killed.<\/p>\n

In one homily quoted by Rashi, the revered 11th-century French rabbi and commentator, \u201cIsaac\u2019s ashes are said to be suitable for repentance, just like the ashes of an [animal] sacrifice.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s a very weird midrash,\u201d Yoreh says, \u201csince Isaac is clearly alive in the next chapter. But that\u2019s the way midrash works. It analyzes episodes without looking at the larger context. That\u2019s why you can have midrashim about Isaac dying, because it doesn\u2019t have to notice that he\u2019s alive in the next chapter.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are many hints of Isaac\u2019s untimely demise. The sacrifice story itself contains strange contradictions and clues that are best resolved, he believes, by assuming a very different, earlier narrative.<\/p>\n

In verse 12, after staying Abraham\u2019s knife-wielding hand in mid-air, the angel of God tells the father of monotheism, \u201cI now know you fear God because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.\u201d<\/p>\n

That phrase, \u201chave not withheld your son,\u201d \u201ccould indicate Abraham was merely willing to sacrifice his son, or that he actually did so,\u201d Yoreh says.<\/p>\n

One hint that it may have been the latter is contained in the names for God used in the story. The Biblical text calls the God who instructs Abraham to sacrifice his son \u201cElohim.\u201d Only when the \u201cangel of God\u201d leaps to Isaac\u2019s rescue does God\u2019s name suddenly change to the four-letter YHWH, a name Jews traditionally do not speak out loud.<\/p>\n

Elohim commands the sacrifice; YHWH stops it. But it is once again Elohim who approves of Abraham for having \u201cnot withheld your son from me.\u201d<\/p>\n

These sorts of variations, rampant throughout the Bible, have led scholars to conclude that different names for God are used by different storylines and editors.<\/p>\n

Indeed, Isaac is never again mentioned in an Elohim storyline. In fact, if you only read the parts of Isaac\u2019s life that use the name Elohim, you don\u2019t have to be a Bible scholar to see the story as one in which Isaac is killed in the sacrifice and disappears completely from the Biblical story.<\/p>\n

\u201cNot that the YHWH portions make much of an effort to bring him back to life either,\u201d Yoreh notes. Indeed, Isaac seems to fade after the sacrifice, with his life story told in just one chapter, compared to more than a dozen chapters for both Abraham and Jacob.<\/p>\n

Worse yet, Isaac\u2019s chapter \u201cis all recycled from Abraham\u2019s life.\u201d Just as Abraham signs a pact with the king Avimelech, so does Isaac. And just as Abraham passes off his wife, Sarah, as his sister to avoid being killed by Avimelech, so does Isaac with his own wife, Rebecca.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s hard to characterize [Isaac\u2019s life after the sacrifice] as distinct stories,\u201d says Yoreh. \u201cThey\u2019re just repeated elements, a recycling of the material.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the earliest Biblical narrative, Yoreh believes, Isaac died that day on Mt. Moriah. Far from setting an example in which God intervenes to end human sacrifice, Abraham, the father of monotheism, is revealed as a man who can walk his own son to the altar and even wield the blade himself.<\/p>\n

This story is horrific as it stands, but if it had remained in the original format, it would have been worse. Nevertheless we can be assured that any god that gave such a macabre command, or test of faith, or any god that would even allow such a story to be included in his holy book, likely does not <\/a>exist.<\/p>\n

(3804) Prodigal son parable contradicts Christian teaching<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most Christians luxuriate in the parable of the prodigal son, seeing it as model for compassionate forgiveness. What they don\u2019t realize that it is at odds with conventional Christian theology. In other words, if Jesus actually stated this parable, then he and Paul would disagree about the mode of salvation. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/onlysky.media\/jpearce\/does-the-prodigal-son-parable-contradict-christian-teaching\/?__vfz=medium%3Dstandalone_content_recirculation_with_ads<\/a><\/p>\n

I recently watched a\u00a0YouTube video by Rabbi Tovia Singer<\/a>\u00a0that discussed how the\u00a0\u201cProdigal Son\u201d parable<\/a>\u00a0fundamentally conflicts with the Christian teaching of \u201cAtonement,\u201d which sparked my interest in this well-known parable. It appears that the famous parable is actually at odds with other core tenets of Christian teaching.<\/p>\n

In case you are not familiar with this parable, contained exclusively in Luke\u2019s Gospel (Chapter 15:11-32), here\u2019s a quick summary:<\/p>\n

A land owner has two sons, and the younger son asks his father for his share of the inheritance. The father complies with the son\u2019s wishes, and then this son leaves for another land, where he fritters the money aware until he is destitute. He is forced to take a job feeding pigs, and even envies the food that the pigs eat.<\/p>\n

Eventually, he comes to the realization that his father\u2019s servants have food, and somewhere to live, so he decides to return to his father, beg forgiveness, and ask that he serve his father as a servant.<\/p>\n

When he approaches the family home, he is spotted by his father, and even though the son asks to be treated as a servant, the father greets him with delight, and treats him with fine clothes and special food.<\/p>\n

The older son hears all the commotion. When told about his brother\u2019s return, he gets angry and confronts his father saying that he (the older brother) has served the father loyally and faithfully all this time, but has never received any such recognition. The father says \u201cSon, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.\u201d<\/p>\n

I think it is pretty obvious that the father in this parable is meant to represent God, and the sons are just \u201cGod\u2019s children,\u201d as in the \u201chuman race.\u201d<\/p>\n

What stood out to Rabbi Singer (and indeed myself) is that forgiveness was\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>granted through the sacrifice of Jesus. Instead, it was the sincere repentance and humbling of the wayward son.<\/p>\n

Hang on a minute, how can this be?<\/em><\/p>\n

Christian teaching insists that\u00a0forgiveness<\/a>\u00a0can only be given by\u00a0asserting that Jesus is your \u201cLord and Savior\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and that you acknowledge his death on the cross as being a sacrifice that\u00a0takes away your sins<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that\u00a0this parable<\/a>\u00a0seems to be encouraging a wayward life, and then repenting, and you will then be rewarded. Contrast this with the faithful son, who gets nothing for his loyalty, except when he finally receives his inheritance.<\/p>\n

Jesus seems to reinforce this view when describing the parable of the \u201cLost Sheep\u201d (Luke 15:4-7):<\/p>\n

\u201cWhich one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbours, saying to them, \u201cRejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.\u201d Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance.”<\/p>\n

Again, the loyal and faithful sheep are left to their own devices, while the one \u201csinful\u201d sheep is brought back to the fold with much joy and celebration.<\/p>\n

Even Martin Luther seems to have embraced this concept of being a sinner when he stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [or sin boldly]<\/strong>, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides.\u201d [My emphasis]<\/p>\n

Letter 99, Paragraph 13. Erika Bullmann Flores, Tr. from: Dr. Martin Luther\u2019s Saemmtliche SchriftenDr. Johann Georg Walch Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15, cols. 2585-2590.<\/cite><\/p>\n

This seems completely contrary to the supposed ethics espoused by most evangelical Christians, who abhor any sin. Yet, it seems that unless you are a sinner who later repents, you will not receive rewards\u2014that these rewards are denied to those loyal and faithful Christians who have never sinned.<\/p>\n

So where does that leave Christians? Do they follow what Jesus himself taught, that forgiveness comes through true repentance, or do they follow what later Christian theologians \u201cinterpret\u201d was the path to salvation: belief in Jesus\u2019s sacrifice to take upon himself one\u2019s sins?<\/p>\n

One would think that Jesus\u2019s own pronouncement would carry the greater weight, but Christian theologians insist forgiveness can only be achieved through the shedding of Jesus\u2019s blood. What a dilemma!<\/p>\n

It seems that I am in complete agreement with Rabbi Tovia Singer when he suggested that the \u201cProdigal Son\u201d parable contradicts Christian teachings.<\/p>\n

Keep in mind that the letters of Paul that teach salvation by faith alone were written before the gospels, but the gospels for the most part do not endorse this teaching. It is possible that the gospel authors were not familiar with these letters, or that they simply disagreed on this theological point. But what is important is that there is a major contradiction facing Christianity\u2019s most important selling point- how does one get into <\/a>heaven?<\/p>\n

(3805) Why are there still Jews?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians are often fond of saying \u2018if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys,\u2019 demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of how evolution works. But an analogous saying, \u2018if Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews,\u2019 has some merit.<\/p>\n

If the gospels and Acts are accurate, then Jesus was very famous throughout Judea and Galilee. He worked many miracles, sometimes witnessed by up to 5000 men plus women and children. If we believe the Gospel of John, he went to Jerusalem three times over a period of three years before being crucified there.<\/p>\n

The time of his crucifixion was during the Passover celebrations, so Jerusalem was packed with many people, including for sure a lot of influential Jews who would later return to their hamlets with news of what happened.<\/p>\n

According to Paul, the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by over 500 people, and according to Matthew, his resurrection was accompanied by a spectacular miracle of dead people rising out of their graves and walking about the city. Not to mention, at his death, a darkened sun and an earthquake.<\/p>\n

According to Acts, Jesus remained in Jerusalem for 40 days after his resurrection, surely enough time for virtually everyone to know that he had risen from the dead.<\/p>\n

According to Christianity, Jesus was the promised messiah, so that fact should have been recognized by scripturally literate Jews and then further reinforced by all of the miraculous happenings.<\/p>\n

So given all of this, how could any Jews have remained unconvinced?<\/b> The regions of Judea and Galilee comprised almost the entire worldwide Jewish population at that time, so a large percentage of Jews should have become Christians immediately, and the word would have spread quickly to the rest. All Jews should have become Christians if the gospels+Acts are accurate history.<\/b><\/p>\n

Well, this didn\u2019t happen. The Jewish faith in Jerusalem and nearby cities remained just as it was before Jesus. Something is wrong, and the best bet is that the gospels and Acts are giving us a false narrative. If Jesus existed, he was probably not that famous, performed no miracles, was executed by the Romans, and his body remained dead after being discarded in a mass <\/a>grave.<\/p>\n

(3806) Crossing the Red Sea<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is well known outside of religious circles that the story of Moses crossing the Red Sea is mythical. What is not well known is that this myth mushroomed out of a mistranslation. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.quora.com\/<\/p>\n

The biblical story of the Exodus is one of the most researched in all biblical archaeology, yet since research began in the mid-1800s, not one single piece of credible evidence to support any part of the story or the characters in it, including Moses, has ever been found. In fact, all serious archaeological and historical research into this story has ceased, as it\u2019s now considered mythical in its entirety.<\/p>\n

In the original Exodus story, there wasn’t any crossing of the Red Sea. The early texts referred to the people crossing the\u00a0Yam Suph\u00a0(\u05d9\u05b7\u05dd<\/span><\/span>–\u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3 <\/span><\/span>in Hebrew) which actually means the Sea of Reeds or Reed Sea, which at the time the story was written was a large marshy region of the Nile Delta several hundred kilometres to the north of the Red Sea and on the route that anyone, fictional or not, leaving the Pi-Ramesses region of northern Egypt for the Levant would take (as mentioned in Exodus 12:37).<\/p>\n

The name of the Red Sea arose because of an error in an early translation from Hebrew to Greek, first mentioned around a thousand years ago by a medieval French rabbi called Shlomo Yitzchaki (aka Rashi). However, this has never been corrected, and the error was perpetuated into further translations of the biblical story, including all the modern English versions of the Bible.<\/p>\n

But allowing for the fact that this story is mythical, you need to consider the numbers of people supposedly involved. Exodus 12:37 says \u201c\u2026\u00a0There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children\u201d, which is an utterly fanciful number; perhaps as many as 2 million people, including women and children. This number of people supposedly wandered in a desert for 40 years, and didn\u2019t leave a single trace \u2014 get real!<\/p>\n

However, for people who still maintain this was a real event, have you for one moment considered how long a line of people this would be, and how long they would take to all pass any given point?<\/p>\n

Even if they walked 20 abreast, the line of people would still be around 10 kilometres long, and at an average walking speed of, say, 4 kilometres per hour \u2014 a very generous assessment in such a massed and mixed crowd \u2014 it would still take 2.5 hours for them all to pass a single point.<\/p>\n

More realistically, it would take double that, some 5 hours, and then you need to consider that even at its narrowest point, the Red Sea is over 30 kilometres wide and some 310 metres deep. You\u2019d be looking at a transit time of around a day, even assuming everything went smoothly and everyone kept up a constant walking speed during that time, day and night.<\/p>\n

Need I say again, it\u2019s a fictional story\u2026<\/p>\n

Anytime the Bible presents a story as being historical but is later determined to mythical, it damages its credibility. Had the Hebrews stuck to actual history, both Judaism and Christianity would be on sounder footing. Christians have been conditioned to believe this actually happened, and they are oblivious to the evidential dead-end that undercuts its place in history as well as the mistranslation that launched this myth in the first <\/a>place.<\/p>\n

(3807) God has communication issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

Is it possible for an omnipotent god (such as Yahweh) who has concerns for human life and plans for afterlife reward and punishment to engage in such an impotent method of communication? The answer appears to be \u2018no.\u2019 The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/v77ez7\/if_god_wanted_you_to_believe_something_you_would\/<\/a><\/p>\n

IF God exists and IF God really wants you to believe something and IF God is very powerful, then it would make sense for God to just write that knowledge on your heart. Why bother choosing a hit-or-miss method of communication like speaking through a prophet?<\/p>\n

This would not decrease free will since you would still have the ability to reject him. The only difference is that it would be a truly informed decision.<\/p>\n

So, one of the following must be true:<\/p>\n

1) There is no God.<\/p>\n

2) God lacks the power to impart knowledge directly.<\/p>\n

3) God is not overly concerned with what you believe.<\/p>\n

4) God is deliberately choosing an unreliable communication method for whatever reason.<\/p>\n

If forced to choose, Christians would most likely settles on #4 and chalk it up to \u2018mysterious ways,\u2019 the go-to defense whenever their beliefs fun into a wall of incoherence. The atheist goes for #1, the deist for #2, and the misotheist for #3. What is missing for Christians is something on the order of \u2018#5, God prints knowledge of himself on the hearts of every soul he creates, so books, priests, pastors, and missionaries are not needed to spread his message to <\/a>humankind.\u2019<\/p>\n

(3808) God regrets making a mistake<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians rarely consider the implications of the story in Genesis where God regrets his creation, realizing that he made a mistake. One thing is certain in life- if someone makes a mistake, they can make another mistake. There is no reason to conclude that if this god is real (he isn\u2019t) and if the scriptures are accurate (they aren\u2019t), then he can regret again and start all over, maybe not with a flood, but perhaps with a big asteroid? The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/v8iz2q\/the_ark_story_is_the_worst_story_ive_ever_heard\/<\/a><\/p>\n

This brings me to my favorite Bible quote of all time:<\/p>\n

Genesis 6:6 New International Version<\/p>\n

6<\/strong>\u00a0The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.<\/p>\n

Tell me again about your\u00a0infallible, all-powerful<\/strong>\u00a0God, and how he\u00a0regretted his Creation<\/strong>. Honestly how is this not Exhibit A in each and every single discussion about what a shitty God this character is? He literally admits in his holy book that he fucked up Creation so bad he had to wipe it out. “Regretted”. For the life of me I can’t figure out how this isn’t a bigger deal. This guy is eternal. If he regretted once, he can regret again. If he fucked up once, he can fuck up again. How can you trust anything about religion when for all you know, next week he could just say “whoops another fuck-up, lemme go ahead and start over again.”<\/p>\n

I understand that some people take the story as literal history and probably far more others take it as a parable. But even accepting it as parable, what lesson am I supposed to even take from it? What morals does it even teach? It doesn’t say jack shit about what made Noah’s family better than everyone else. “Believe in God or I’ll drown all your neighbors?” If I’m a good follower, God’s gonna build me an Ark amidst the apocalypse? Holy shit I’d rather die with my neighbors. What kind of incentive is this?<\/p>\n

How can anyone ever trust a supremely powerful being who famously said “I fucked up once and I promise not to fuck up again”?<\/p>\n

There can be no question that assigning regret to God, admitting he made a mistake, was itself a big mistake by the author(s) of Genesis. It set up a scenario of uncertainty surrounding Yahweh\u2019s capabilities, intentions, and methods of resolving conflict. And that this god might get caught up in another <\/a>mistake.<\/p>\n

(3809)l One reason why Jews rejected Jesus<\/strong><\/p>\n

One conundrum of Christianity is why Jesus didn\u2019t bring the Jews, at least the majority of them, into the Christian fold. This surely involves many reasons, but one is likely the fact that, assuming a certain fidelity of the gospels, Jesus introduced the theme of an evil Satan and associated demonology that traditional Jews found to be both strange and ridiculous. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/v7yu6m\/how_was_the_concept_of_satan_received_in_1st\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Logically, I feel like one of the strongest points that early Jews could make against Christianity was the introduction of Satan in the New Testament and Christian mythology in general. My understanding is that in the OT, the creature most closely identified as Satan is essentially a member of God’s heavenly court and works with him to test humans and run experiments on Earth. Yet suddenly in the NT, this character has randomly been mutated into a fearsome evil entity that hates God and constantly tries to seduce humans to sin.<\/p>\n

How would the introduction of a brand new character be received among the general population? Would early opponents of Christianity have pointed this out and said “Hey, if Jesus’ teachings are true then how come the characters he mention have no precedent in our religious books? Clearly he just made this up!” And if they didn’t use that as an argument, why not?<\/p>\n

It can be assumed that if Jesus\u2019 statements about Satan and demons are accurately documented, and that Jesus is a third of God, then it would be expected that these characters would be similarly described in the Old Testament. This is a fatal problem for Christianity, assuming that it continues to credit the Old Testament as its doxological <\/a>foundation.<\/p>\n

(3810) The fallacy of sending burdens<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some Christians believe that God metes out burdens to his followers to make them stronger or wiser, but that the burdens are always fine tuned so as not exceed the limits of the individual. In practical terms, this makes little sense. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/onlysky.media\/bseidensticker\/god-as-an-inept-teacher-more-problems-with-the-logic-of-hell\/<\/a><\/p>\n

There is a wonderful seeing in Agnes of God, where in Jane Fonda is talking to the mother superior The convent, saying how devastating the death of her mother was. Mother superior replies with a platitude: \u201cGod never sends us any burden greater than we can bear.\u201c Jane responds, \u201c Does that mean if I were a weaker person, my mother would still be alive?\u201d<\/p>\n

The question arises, of course, as to why God feels it necessary to send burdens to anyone, especially when he knows what the results will be. It\u2019s like the gay kid, raised in a religious home, desperate not to be gay, who prays and prays and prays for god to make him heterosexual, but god doesn\u2019t. The most likely options for the boy are that he drops the religious bologna, and hopefully lives as an out, happy man, or keeps the religious bologna and becomes of celibate unhappy man, or keeps the religious baloney, and leads a life of furtive sex and self hatred.<\/p>\n

The first option are ignoring the probably nonexistent God. The second option is giving into the probably nonexistent God, but it also says that god is enjoying his suffering, seeing as maybe the catholic god didn\u2019t give him the charisma of celibacy. The third option is the interesting one: either God chooses not to help him, in which case God knows that the man is going to burn in hell. Or, the man commits a bunch of sins, and will burn in hell anyway. Neither of those scenarios makes this probably not existent God look all that good.<\/p>\n

Simple observation indicates that there is no supernatural intelligence assigning burdens to people- it is a thoroughly random process, just as would be expected in a godless <\/a>universe.<\/p>\n

(3811) God flunks his omni\u2019s<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians have been loathe to place any restrictions onto God, and in so doing they have painted themselves into a corner, contradicting their own scriptures. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/v951pw\/question_where_do_gawds_attributes_come_from\/<\/a><\/p>\n

According to some religious people, Gawd is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and even omnibenevolent. In plain English, this means that they think “he” knows all, is everywhere at once, has all the power, and is really excellent.<\/p>\n

I fail to see where these people get this from. I’d say it’s not in the bible.<\/p>\n