> They're just accepted to be that way because most, if not all, people feel affectionate for children and feel bad about killing them.

I actually think the philosophy of life you are advocating is barbaric. And people call God evil? This philosophy supplants God's alleged "evil" by miles.

> the killing of ritualistic killing of children was something that took place and still does today in some cults around the world.

Killing ritualistically is a different motive than killing for the fun of it. Some cultures too kill ritualistically, but nowhere and never in history has killing children for the fun of it been deemed OK, acceptable, good, or right.

> Do did god make a mistake or was it his plan to show to Saul that he lacks faith?

God didn't make a mistake. God was against the choice of Saul to begin with, but the nation persisted in it (1 Sam. 8.7). Saul was a bad egg, and just about every turn in life showed it. This was like the final straw, and God is showing sort of "I told you so." After this incident He rejects Saul completely. There is no more hope for Saul. He has ground in and settled his mind in rejection of God. No matters what happens now he'll never turn towards the right.

> essentially The Father doesnt care who dies for your sins.

This is completely wrong. It matters very much who dies for your sins. Death for someone else's sins is a complete waste of time, energy, and a life unless it's His sinless Son. That's the only strategy that's efficacious.

> So according to the christian worldview, justice = appeasment?

Nope. Completely wrong again. In the Christian worldview, justice = distribution, retribution, mercy, grace, fitness, substitution, and appeasement. To make it just one of these is wrongly reductionistic.

> if god is the ultimate standard for justice, would the scenario I provided be just?

The scenario you provided is simplistic, reductionistic, and unrealistic to the situation.

> when you owe someone financially, the reason you can have someone else pay them back is because the lender doesnt care where the money is coming from.

Any analogy can be pressed beyond its intent. Take it for an analogy, not an allegory. In a similar analogy that Jesus tells parabolically (Matthew 18.27), a debt is completely written off because of the compassion of the lender. take the analogies for what they're intended to express.

> I supposedly owe a debt, which i did not agree to (original sin

Yeah, it's like suppose you were born as a citizen to a country you didn't even choose. Yep, your parents made a decision that affects you, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. It happens all the time. You were born separated from God (a citizen of a certain country). But suppose there was an open invitation for you to emigrate to a wonderful country, and it's your choice to do so at any time. If you don't emigrate, that's your issue. Your original state doesn't mean anything, per se. It's your decisions that affect your "debt."

> to an entity which i cannot even verify exists

I've never been to Switzerland, so I can't verify it exists. But there is enough evidence that points to the truth of that that I can accept it as a reasonable supposition and assume it to be fact.

So also with God. The evidence for theism is far stronger and weightier than evidence against him. If you're objectively-minded and open to truth, you'll weigh the evidence without bias. If you're like Saul and have closed your mind, then even the strongest evidence won't help.

> else ill be obliderated and wont spend an eternity in bliss

Again, you are distorting the true scenario. You're invited to become a citizen of the ideal country. If you choose not to emigrate, you set your own fate in the detrimental country of your birth. It's your choice if you want to stay in harm's way or if you want to accept the invitation to "bliss."

> And not only that, but there are other people running around speaking of other similar entities who i also owe a debt to, and that my repayment to one of these entities completely excludes me from accepting the repayment from another entity.

Yep, we all have to discern truth correctly. There are many competing voices.

> So killing a child for the fun of it is not necessarily evil? It might be OK in certain circumstances? And rape might just as well be good as evil, depending on the conditions? To me that's a not only untenable (no one lives that way), but also horrific. Imagine a world where people lived with that philosophy. Awful.

Well this sort of gets into error theory which is a whole different can of worms. But yea i dont think there are objective moral norms. They are nearly-universally accepted but it doesnt make them objectively true. They're just accepted to be that way because most, if not all, people feel affectionate for children and feel bad about killing them. But i dont think moral intuitions correspond to an objective truth "out there" in the world. Its like taste. People can agree that a burger tastes good but it doesnt make tastiness an objective fact about something. Its not like our other senses which interact with actualy physical things. Its not exactly clear what our mind is interacting with when it comes to moral intuitions.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/moral-error-theory.html

Also the killing of ritualistic killing of children was something that took place and still does today in some cults around the world. Either to appease a god or because the baby was deemed unfit, like in ancient sparta for example. This isnt exactly "for fun" but clearly these people believed they were justified in killing innocent babies. Im fact the bible even mentions child sacrifices being practiced by occultists in other cultures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

> Saul's sin created an imbalance that must be righted, and so God determines, on the basis of Saul's disobedience and godless attitude (it's not the first time Saul has shown this), that he needs to be replaced.

Do did god make a mistake or was it his plan to show to Saul that he lacks faith?

> The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. The pay sin doles out is death

So essentially The Father doesnt care who dies for your sins. As long as someone dies. So according to the christian worldview, justice = appeasment?

This is what the situation looks like from my pov

The Father: "These humans are full of sin. They must pay for their crimes!"

Jesus: "yea but do THEY have to pay?"

The Father: "Well...SOMEONES GOTTA PAY!

Jesus: "I love them so I'll pay."

The Father: "Okay"

Now replace "the father" with "the judge"

"Humans" with "criminals"

"Jesus" with "a totally innocent person"

And ask yourself, if god is the ultimate standard for justice, would the scenario I provided be just?

Also when you owe someone financially, the reason you can have someone else pay them back is because the lender doesnt care where the money is coming from. The lender just wants to make interest. How the money gets to him is not his concern. In otherwords, the lender isnt concerned with justice or moral obligation or what have you. He just needs his money. Its a matter of pure self-interest.

Also, if we go with this anology,

I supposedly owe a debt, which i did not agree to (original sin) to an entity which i cannot even verify exists, and now the son of this unverifiable entity which is also somehow part of this entity is offering for me to accept that i let him pay off this supposed debt else ill be obliderated and wont spend an eternity in bliss. And not only that, but there are other people running around speaking of other similar entities who i also owe a debt to, and that my repayment to one of these entities completely excludes me from accepting the repayment from another entity. Oh and all of these entities are also totally loving and just and only want whats best from me.

And here I was thinking Nigerian Princes were as bad as it gets.

I can see we're at an impasse. Your answers betray a certain "digging in" to a foxhole to defend what you want to believe.

> But wouldn't killing gays result in less people?

This is unarguable.

> If you genocide gay people, there will be far less workers than otherwise.

All capital punishment has this undeniable effect. The family unit was a high value, and so were able-bodied workers. But the ultimate values of their culture were found in order vs. disorder and non order, and honor vs. shame. Homosexuality belonged to the realms of disorder and shame.

> What are your sources?

I already gave them to you.

"My research comes from...
Walton & Walton, The Lost World of the Torah
Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament
research on law codes in the ancient Near East
James Brownson: Bible, Gender, Sexuality
Sarah Ruden: Paul Among the People
and dozens of articles."

This shows me you've dug in and you're just in a position where you want to argue. I feel like it's no longer a conversation.

> Why should we kill the consenting adults as well?

Even adultery between consenting heterosexuals was a capital crime. The issue wasn't that homosexuality was singled out.

> In my experience, there are no positives to weakness.

I would have to wonder then if you've ever been in love, because love often expresses weakness as a positive trait. Apologizing is also often proper, and it could be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

> No, I never chose to be gay, I've never been attracted to women.

I never claimed that you consciously chose to be gay. We are formed by our genes, our experiences, and our interpretation of those experiences. There is a lot that has been part of forming who I am that I didn't deliberately choose.

> in any of the bible quotes you've hit me with

See? I didn't HIT you with any verses. I thought we were having a conversation, and I thought there was interest on your part. I apologize for having been mistaken about that.

> So why didn't he make me well-off?

God is not in the business of arranging people's financial conditions. There are a few times in the Bible where we learn that He did that, but it's not generally the case. Our financial conditions are what they are and what we are able to make of them. God didn't make Bill Gates rich; God didn't make the Bangladeshis poor.

> Probably because they had no legal outlet for their urges

Making guesses doesn't really help us understand the truth of anything.

> I don't trust humans without evidence, much less a person in a book that I've never see

I go by the evidence as well—the evidence for theism, the evidence of the credibility of the Bible, and the evidence of the resurrection.

>> I can assure you that God loves you
> So why hasn't he shown it?

He has shown it. Did you die from Corona virus? People are blaming God for these deaths; why does no one credit God for life? Do you have a computer and Internet access? Then possibly you are better off than more than 80% of people on Earth. Do you have walls and a roof? Then you are better off than many. Do you have a job? Were you educated in a school?

God shows His love for in these common ways we call "common grace." It rains on our farm fields. The sun shines and brings forth crops. Our bodies are able to heal from accidents and disease.

God also showed His love by dying in your place so you could be freed from your sins and have a relationship with Him. Your eternity matters, and that's where God made His biggest sacrifice, for you.

> Yes it is, by it's very definition Christianity is a religion.

It's a religion by secular definition, but not in reality. In reality, religion is humans trying to earn their way to God and to find God by their own means. Christianity is complete antithetical to that: God has come to find us, and He has paid the price Himself because it's impossible to earn our way.

Since you're Irish, I don't know if you're Catholic or Protestant, but Ireland has had terrible and extended wars and unrest at least with some religious overtones (though I've heard from others that it was only the media that portrayed it that way; in reality it was other factions against each other that the media labelled as "Catholic vs. Protestant." I don't know and can't know. I don't trust the media, and I wasn't there to know the inside story—the real story.

Christianity isn't a religion. It's a relationship with the living God. Despite what Roman Catholicism has made of Christianity (which I find deplorable), Christianity is a profoundly non-sacramental faith system. It's not a religion, though RCC has tried for 1500 years to make it that.

>>Jesus deplored religion.
> So, why did he found one?

He didn't. Read the Gospels. Read Paul's writings. There's nothing of religion there. Roman Catholicism made it into a religion, and what they did is inimical to the teachings of Christ.

> I gain purpose though happiness.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. You can do as you wish.

> First of all, survival depended on having children to help with things: food procuring, hunting, protection, etc. Same-sex couples can't have children.

But wouldn't killing gays result in less people? If you genocide gay people, there will be far less workers than otherwise.

> by my research a lot of homosexual sex in the ancient world was basically what we call sexual abuse of slaves and children.

What are your sources?

Why wouldn't god just tell them to kill the abusive ones? Why should we kill the consenting adults as well?

> It's often in the state of personal weakness that I can learn best about submission, servanthood, humility, and dependence.

In my experience, there are no positives to weakness.

> Homosexuality is not a disease.

I agree, I was speaking from the perspective of when I was younger, when people called me diseased.

> and that same-sex orientation most often comes from life experiences.

No, I never chose to be gay, I've never been attracted to women.

> You seem to consistently take the derogatory approach, which is unfortunate.

How else would I take it? I literally can't see any positives in any of the bible quotes you've hit me with.

> God doesn't want you to be hungry and dirty.

So why didn't he make me well-off?

> But in the ancient world, homosexuality often played itself out in sexual abuse of others

Probably because they had no legal outlet for their urges, they knew that if they told their father about how they felt, he would beat them to death.

> I'm not defending what they did, just saying that I can see why.

> We're supposed to trust His wisdom.

I don't trust humans without evidence, much less a person in a book that I've never seen.

> I can assure you that God loves you

So why hasn't he shown it?

> This isn't about religion, that's for sure.

Yes it is, by it's very definition Christianity is a religion.

> Jesus deplored religion.

So, why did he found one?

> All I can say is, there's more to life that just being happy. Helen Keller, who had her share of challenges, said, "Many persons have a wrong idea about what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose." Happiness is only a mood, not a condition.

I gain purpose though happiness.

> did they really need to erase the art and mythology?

I don't really know what they did, and I'll never try to justify it. People of different eras worked with different worldviews. I don't excuse it or justify it. I'm only saying that we can't know what would have developed otherwise, whether that would have been even worse.

> How would gay sex being legal destroy Family structure, social order, or god's presence?

First of all, survival depended on having children to help with things: food procuring, hunting, protection, etc. Same-sex couples can't have children. Second, in an era without banks and other financial conveniences and institutions, it was all about the land, keeping the land in one's family, and passing it from generation to generation for posterity and survival. Again, gays don't have children. Third, by my research a lot of homosexual sex in the ancient world was basically what we call sexual abuse of slaves and children. If that's true, no wonder it was considered contrary to social order. Fourth, a lot of homosexual sex was associated with idol worship and fertility rites in pagan temples, which would have been anathema to worshippers of the true God.

>> 2 Cor. 12.8-10

> God wants us to be weak and worthless? That doesn't sound good.

Read deeper, my friend. Our circumstances in life are not what define us or determine who we are. It's often in the state of personal weakness that I can learn best about submission, servanthood, humility, and dependence. God is strong when I am submissive, humble, teachable, and dependent.

When I am feeling weak, I have several choices: (1) try to be stronger; (2) do everything to fix my own situation; (3) get somebody to help me. The third one is what the verses are talking about. Spiritual oppression and circumstantial garbage is upsetting, and can make us angry and bitter. I can try to fix the situation, which can be a good choice, but some situations aren't fixable. I can try to be stronger, which can be a good thing, but sometimes my strength isn't enough, and the fact that the situation might not be fixable keeps clubbing me from behind, and I just can't handle it any more. In that case the best choice is number 3: get somebody to help. When I choose this, I am also choosing submission, humility, and dependence. Those responses are all ones that allow God to work. If we pray with humility and dependence that God would fill us with himself, because we're feeling quite empty and inadequate, and just work on the relationship with him, the grit of the unresolved circumstance will come under the strength of that prayer.

> he would refuse to cure me of a disease

Homosexuality is not a disease. The source and roots of it are still unknown, but science is right now telling us that there is no "gay gene," so to speak (we can talk about this more if you wish), and that same-sex orientation most often comes from life experiences.

> Why should I love a god who wants me to be hungry and dirty?

You seem to consistently take the derogatory approach, which is unfortunate. God doesn't want you to be hungry and dirty. God made Abraham a rich man. So also Joseph, Daniel, and others. It's not wealth that's the problem, but what people do with it. God wishes to bless you, but money is not the answer to human problems. What the Bible says is that money can be just as dangerous as it is helpful, and it's something that easily takes over our lives and we become (1) different people because of it, and (2) can even become slaves to it.

> If a man has 12 sons, and the youngest is homosexual, he will literally lose nothing, he won't lose any inheritance, he won't lose the chance to have grandchildren, there will literally be no negatives.

Correct. Except the last phrase. We can't be assured that "there will literally be no negatives," because it depends on the person and the situation. But that's no different than a heterosexual person, frankly. But in the ancient world, homosexuality often played itself out in sexual abuse of others and in idolatry, so you can't really say, "Aw, it's nothing."

>> He said it didn't reflect His holiness. He didn't explain why.

> Why won't he explain his reasoning?

I can't answer that. (shoulder shrug) He didn't explain His reasoning for most things. We're supposed to trust His wisdom.

> What would I get if I sacrificed everything to god?

Jesus says if you lose yourself for His sake, you gain yourself. He also says that if you "sell everything you have" to gain the kingdom, you will own the most valuable thing in life. Paul says if you sacrifice everything to God, you will know God Himself, and enviable knowledge, to be sure.

> I have no love for god and I don't think he loves me, why would I do it?

I can assure you that God loves you, but if you have no love for God, you wouldn't do it. Christianity is about a relationship with the God you love. If you don't love, there's no relationship. This isn't about religion, that's for sure. Jesus deplored religion.

> Sorry, I only feel fulfilled when I'm happy, otherwise I'm just angry.

All I can say is, there's more to life that just being happy. Helen Keller, who had her share of challenges, said, "Many persons have a wrong idea about what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose." Happiness is only a mood, not a condition.

> I was a kid last time I read the bible, that's what stood out to me.

Well, maybe it's time to pick it up again. Read the Gospel of John. It should take you about an hour.

> The "what if" is impossible to know. If Ireland were breaking into violent, warring tribes, it's possible that without the influence of Christianity Ireland's people and heritage would have been wiped out complete. It's impossible to say and impossible to know what might have been. The Irish might be gone just like the Philistines, the Visigoths, or the Canaanites. Who knows? We know that Christianity had a beneficial effect on Europe and basically saved western civilization. I'd have to study a WHOLE lot more to speak authoritatively about Ireland.

But did they really need to erase the art and mythology?

> I disagree. The ancient laws were written to preserve society, the family structure, social order, and to maintain God's presence in their midst. There's a much more complex picture than you are allowing.

How would gay sex being legal destroy Family structure, social order, or god's presence?

> Read 2 Cor. 12.8-10

God wants us to be weak and worthless? That doesn't sound good.

> I know this may be hard to hear, but life isn't all about sex...

I'm sorry, I don't understand why any loving god would do this, he would refuse to cure me of a disease (That he has the power to cure) and then he expects me to live like I don't have it?

> Yeah, I have prayed that, too. Again, you probably know what the Bible says about wealth. Money ruins people. Money can trash you out. Many people who win the lottery—their lives are ruined by it. Again, life is not about wealth or poverty, but instead about spiritual realities and a relationship with God. Seek God's kingdom instead.

Why should I love a god who wants me to be hungry and dirty?

> Second, you have to understand that in the ancient world having a lot of children was necessary for survival, and therefore the family unit was a deeply ingrained value in life. A woman who was sterile was an outcast. Large populations of people who wanted only a same-sex relationships? That just won't work.

If a man has 12 sons, and the youngest is homosexual, he will literally lose nothing, he won't lose any inheritance, he won't lose the chance to have grandchildren, there will literally be no negatives.

> Third, God didn't say it was stupid or wrong, He said it didn't reflect His holiness. He didn't explain why. Being disobedient to parents didn't reflect His holiness, either. Nor eating shellfish.

Why won't he explain his reasoning?

> I didn't say God doesn't want you happy. What I said is that sometimes there are more important things. Some people accept a life of sacrifice out of love for someone else (like a person taking care of an invalid). Some people give all their money away to the poor. These actions don't lead to happiness, but these people feel it's the way to use their life with purpose. That's what I mean. Sometimes ultimate values trump happiness. God is after ultimate values. Often happiness is part of that, but not necessarily so.

What would I get if I sacrificed everything to god?

People who sacrifice themselves for someone do it because they love that person, I have no love for god and I don't think he loves me, why would I do it?

> Sometimes fulfillment is a function of doing what you're supposed to do. People become doctors, police, or even politicians because that's what makes them fulfilled ("I'm helping people," rather than, "This makes me happy"). Some people go to prison on purpose, or even starve themselves for greater purposes of fulfillment. These aren't based on happiness, but instead on someone who deems that such actions are necessary, valuable, and therefore ultimately fulfilling. But for sure it doesn't make them happy.

Sorry, I only feel fulfilled when I'm happy, otherwise I'm just angry.

> Wow, how could you miss ALL the sections about love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and freedom? Let's keep talking.

I was a kid last time I read the bible, that's what stood out to me.

> without Christianity, we would still have the Irish culture of antiquity, or at least the art of it.

The "what if" is impossible to know. If Ireland were breaking into violent, warring tribes, it's possible that without the influence of Christianity Ireland's people and heritage would have been wiped out complete. It's impossible to say and impossible to know what might have been. The Irish might be gone just like the Philistines, the Visigoths, or the Canaanites. Who knows? We know that Christianity had a beneficial effect on Europe and basically saved western civilization. I'd have to study a WHOLE lot more to speak authoritatively about Ireland.

> Again, Leviticus 20:13 is evil.

I disagree. The ancient laws were written to preserve society, the family structure, social order, and to maintain God's presence in their midst. There's a much more complex picture than you are allowing.

> Plus the fact that when I was christian, I constantly prayed to god to make me straight, he never did

Did you every consider the possibility that it was your and God's advantage that He not answer that prayer? Read 2 Cor. 12.8-10. I know this may be hard to hear, but life isn't all about sex. There's a whole lot more at play in what life is all about, and a lot far-more-important things going on than gender. I think it's possible God wants you to look beyond these fleshly matters and into the more substantial wisdom of life and God. This is not to minimize sexual orientation, because the Bible says we are physical beings and our physical bodies matter. I'm just suggesting that a singular focus on one part of life ("I'm gay") has derailed everything else, and I think that's a mistake.

> I prayed for him to make me not poor, he never did.

Yeah, I have prayed that, too. Again, you probably know what the Bible says about wealth. Money ruins people. Money can trash you out. Many people who win the lottery—their lives are ruined by it. Again, life is not about wealth or poverty, but instead about spiritual realities and a relationship with God. Seek God's kingdom instead.

> I prayed for the horrible nightmares of hell to go away, they never did.

I am not a dream interpreter, but generally I have found that dreams are a working out of what's going on in us emotionally. It seems to me, just superficially now, that these nightmares are an indicator of how troubled you are in your soul. You've probably thought about that.

> Why would legalizing gay marriage be stupid or wrong?

I don't think it's stupid or wrong. For one, Israel's law applies to ancient Israel, and the NT applies to Christians. What the Bible says doesn't apply to people who aren't Christians. I'm all for civil rights.

Second, you have to understand that in the ancient world having a lot of children was necessary for survival, and therefore the family unit was a deeply engrained value in life. A woman who was sterile was an outcast. Large populations of people who wanted only a same-sex relationships? That just won't work.

Third, God didn't say it was stupid or wrong, He said it didn't reflect His holiness. He didn't explain why. Being disobedient to parents didn't reflect His holiness, either. Nor eating shellfish.

> Pray and the answers will come"

Don't get me wrong, prayer has plenty of value. It's real. But it's never that we have to chose between thinking and praying, or between acting and praying. We do all three, recognizing the place each aspect has.

> Why doesn't god want me to be happy?

I didn't say God doesn't want you happy. What I said is that sometimes there are more important things. Some people accept a life of sacrifice out of love for someone else (like a person taking care of an invalid). Some people give all their money away to the poor. These actions don't lead to happiness, but these people feel it's the way to use their life with purpose. That's what I mean. Sometimes ultimate values trump happiness. God is after ultimate values. Often happiness is part of that, but not necessarily so.

> How can I be fulfilled if I'm not happy?

Sometimes fulfillment is a function of doing what you're supposed to do. People become doctors, police, or even politicians because that's what makes them fulfilled ("I'm helping people," rather than, "This makes me happy"). Some people go to prison on purpose, or even starve themselves for greater purposes of fulfillment. These aren't based on happiness, but instead on someone who deems that such actions are necessary, valuable, and therefore ultimately fulfilling. But for sure it doesn't make them happy.

People like whistle-blowers, for instance, know that it's the right thing to do even if they lose their jobs, they're blacklisted, their families are shamed—what have you. But you do what's right, even if it doesn't lead to happiness.

> The bible is mostly rules, there is very little, if any, freedom in it.

The "rules" in the Bible are not legislation. The Bible doesn't have legislation in it because legislation was not part of the ancient mindset. (That's how we read it, because legislation is OUR mindset.) Instead the Bible is legal wisdom. We can talk about this further if you want. The Bible is about relationship, not legislation—freedom, not rules. But it's a larger conversation.

> I ever really knew of the bible was death, the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the killing of gays, Jesus returning with a sword, the fire of hell, that scarred me.

Wow, how could you miss ALL the sections about love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and freedom? Let's keep talking.

> Every discipline has its wackos, and every movement has dark stains on it. Whether education, science, politics, business, religion, philosophy, or the arts, there is always an idiot who spoils the village. What we look at is the concepts at the core, the philosophy involved, and the majority outcome by true adherents, and not those of the extreme and violent.

All I'm gonna say is that, without Christianity, we would still have the Irish culture of antiquity, or at least the art of it.

> Your perception is not based on what the Bible says, but instead on something else. I don't know whether you had a bad experience, or you misunderstood something you read in the Bible, or someone lied to you about the Bible, but it's not an accurate perception.

Again, Leviticus 20:13 is evil.

Plus the fact that when I was christian, I constantly prayed to god to make me straight, he never did.

I prayed for him to make me not poor, he never did.

I prayed for the horrible nightmares of hell to go away, they never did.

> A perfect being cannot cease to be perfect. That's a self-contradictory absurdity, and it's absurd to think that if a perfect being were really all-powerful, He could make Himself to do stupid and wrong things. That doesn't make a shred of sense.

Why would legalizing gay marriage be stupid or wrong?

> I hope no one told you, "Don't use your brain, just pray." If so, that's at least one part of misunderstanding that not only isn't helpful, but it's just plain wrong.

My Aunt took care of me when my parents were homeless, and often times when I asked a question her responses were just "Pray and the answers will come" and when I was scared she told me to "Pray the darkness away"

> God isn't oriented to your happiness but instead to your wholeness, completion, freedom, and holiness. Happiness is somewhat based on circumstances, is often shallow, and quite temporary. Happiness isn't the goal: the fullness of life is the goal.

Why doesn't god want me to be happy?
How can I be fulfilled if I'm not happy?
How can I be free if I have endless rules chaining me down? The bible is mostly rules, there is very little, if any, freedom in it.

> There's nothing evil about life, truth, freedom, fulness, fulfillment, significance, love, and peace. Those are the things the Bible teaches.

I have to ask again, how is it free to have hundreds of needless laws? How can I be full if I'm unhappy? How can I feel love if my love is outlawed?

> that pain is associated with God, the Bible, and Christianity.

It is completely based around the bible, growing up, all I ever really knew of the bible was death, the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the killing of gays, Jesus returning with a sword, the fire of hell, that scarred me.

> The same would apply to a good god who cannot do evil.

So this proves your case doesn't hold. If it can go either way or be true in either sense, then your assertion that it proves God is not omnipotent is untrue. It doesn't prove that, because the same same scenario could show exactly the opposite. Therefore your argument doesn't hold.

> I dont. Not in any objective sense atleast.

So killing a child for the fun of it is not necessarily evil? It might be OK in certain circumstances? And rape might just as well be good as evil, depending on the conditions? To me that's a not only untenable (no one lives that way), but also horrific. Imagine a world where people lived with that philosophy. Awful.

> No such consensus exists, at leats not universally

You mean we can't and don't all agree that killing a child for the fun of it is wrong? I disagree with you. No one, but NO ONE, in any culture at any time thinks this is OK, let alone right.

> Well if you gave someone matches knowing full well they were going to light the house on fire, then yea i would have a problem with it

Well now you've changed the situation. Of course making that change changes the situation.

> But to the claim that these intuitions correspond to an objective property of the world would need to be justified.

The evidence justifies it. There is no culture anywhere in any period of history who regards that killing a child for the fun of it is right. None. It's an objective standard that all humanity through all of history has held.

> there are instances in the bible where god commands the killing of children or kills children as a pubishment to the parents. Such as the Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12) even though he did not have to do that.

You misunderstand this situation. It wasn't the punish the parents, but to judge the entire culture. The entire culture was in moral collapse, and the next generation was being trained to make it even worse. Sometimes the only way to stop something is to stop it at its source.

> Or remember when Samuel told Saul that god said too kill all of the Amalekites?

Of course I know this text. If you've read it, you can see that Saul was conquering a single city (they waited in a ravine to ambush them), and there was no slaughter of the innocents. They killed the soldiers who were in pursuit. There was no genocide, only the conquering of a city and killing its soldiers.

> Perhaps he sees the elimination of the Amalekites as the only way to prevent them from attacking israel again?

The Amalekites were around for at least a thousand more years. There was no elimination, no genocide, no killing of the innocents. If you want to discuss it more, we can, but you need to see how you have misunderstood the Bible and based on your anger and bitterness on incorrect readings. You've been taught to hate a book (and God) for false reasons. I'd love to talk more.

> And why kill the cattle and sheep as well?

The word *cherem* (usually translated "totally destroy") means "remove from human use." Sometimes that means destroy, but often it means to dedicate it to the Lord, like a field that becomes the property of the temple or a appliance (like a pot) that is for temple use. The animals weren't being killed, they were being saved for the temple to use (not the soldiers). Instead, Saul presumably let a bunch of the animals go and kept the rest for himself and his men, which is not what God had commanded. These animals were for temple use, not for his soldiers.

> How can the lord have regret if he is not flawed?

Because you're misreading the concept of regret. Again, I would urge that you read the whole Bible to understand it, not just cherry pick "gotcha" texts. The word is נִחָם (*nicham*), and it can mean regret, but can also mean "to suffer grief." As you look at the whole text, we can see that God is grieved by Saul's disobedience, and He must make a change in Israel's leadership. Saul's sin created an imbalance that must be righted, and so God determines, on the basis of Saul's disobedience and godless attitude (it's not the first time Saul has shown this), that he needs to be replaced. That's what's going on here.

I fear that you have rejected the Bible and God for the wrong reasons you've been lied to or lied to yourself—and when you stand before God, you're going to be left with nothing to say.

> I dont see how jesus's suffering attones for the sins of humanity.

There are different ways of looking at the substitution concept (Jesus' death for my sins). On the one hand, if someone wants to pay a monetary debt in our place, we're grateful. On another hand, if someone innocent wants to serve a jail sentence for a convicted criminal, we think that's not fair, and rightly so. Jesus' death for us are more like the first rather than the second, according to the Bible.

If you have a debt of, say, $50,000, and a friend of yours steps up and offers to pay it for you, just because he's your friend, you would (I bet) gladly accept. It's the same thing here. Each of us has a debt, a debt of sin and the payment is death (Rom. 6.23). So instead of money, the debt is life. Jesus stepped up and offered to pay it for you, just because he loves you. He has a right to be generous with you if he chooses. You may logically object, "Life is different from money." Not as far as the definition of debt is concerned. You may object that money debt is different from punishment debt. Let's look at the technicalities of the law. Supposing a slave back in colonial America was due to receive 40 lashes, and another man stepped up and offered to take the 40 lashes in his place. Technically as to the law, as long as the 40 lashes got delivered to a back, the law was served. That's the point here. Technically, as long as the punishment is paid, justice is served.

The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. The pay sin doles out is death. Humans sold themselves out to sin, and we are now enslaved to it. Death is the inevitable result for each one of us. But Jesus freely and willingly took that punishment for us; he was qualified to do that because he was the only sinless person and therefore didn't deserve it. After all, there's no effectiveness for one life-sentenced prisoner to say he'll also serve time for another, or for one person hopelessly in debt to take on the debt of another hopeless indebted person. The only real justice lies in someone being able to be the substitute who actually can be the substitute.

You probably have more questions. Feel free to ask more.

> And what makes you think that the ability to do evil shows a greater power? In my mind, it shows a lesser power, because one cannot exert what is necessary to maintain goodness. He is weak, vulnerable, and without the capacity to do only good.

The same would apply to a good god who cannot do evil.

> It makes perfect sense. We all admit that there is such a thing as good and evil

I dont. Not in any objective sense atleast.

> We also understand that our ability to recognize them is based on a mutually recognizable definition of good and badness with enough consensus to make communication meaningful.

No such consensus exists, at leats not universally. Even amongst christians, issues of morality are contested.

> If I were to run into a burning building to save you or someone you love, do you have a problem with that?

Well if you gave someone matches knowing full well they were going to light the house on fire, then yea i would have a problem with it. Sure they performed a good act by saving that person but they also performed a bad act by giving them the match in the first place.

> You know quite well. Raping women is bad. Killing children for the fun of it is bad. These things are evil, and we all know it. We also recognize goodness: love, care, sharing of resources, helping another. We all know these things.

I cant claim to know these things are bad. I feel they are bad. I intuit it. But to the claim that these intuitions correspond to an objective property of the world would need to be justified. To even be able to claim that we know god is good, we would have to show that to be true, which we cant. We can only take his supposed word for it.

Also there are instances in the bible where god commands the killing of children or kills children as a pubishment to the parents. Such as the Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12) even though he did not have to do that. Or remember when Samuel told Saul that god said too kill all of the Amalekites? "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." now yes, there are all sorts of hypothetical reasons God could command this. Perhaps he sees the elimination of the Amalekites as the only way to prevent them from attacking israel again? But this to me seems odd. Wouldnt a loving god tell them to make peace? Why not bring their army to justice, and let the women and children be? Couldnt God at least justify why he was commanding that they should kill everyone and everything? And why kill the cattle and sheep as well? This seems awefully and unnecessarily brutal. Especially considering how their army would be in need of supply and resources. Soldiers arent free. They need food and supplies. Sparring the animals or letting the Israelites take them for themselves would have been far more humane and sensible and even rational. And there are many other instances od god commanding the killing of innocent lives. Not to mention all the unnecessary death from disease and plagues and other natural disasters which affect christians and non-christians alike today.

Also, you claim god cant be flawed but in the same passage about the malakites, it reads

"And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

" How can the lord have regret if he is not flawed? God is all knowing so surely he did forsee this? Why would it even make sense to use the word regret in that context? Regret mean you wish you could do something different. But god doesnt change his mind, so why would he regret making Saul king?

> The Father is sending the Son because the Son volunteered to go.

I mean that doesnt really address the issue. I agree the son volunteered. But in my example, the innocent man does too.

> There is nothing unjust about it.

I mean if you agree that a judge letting an innocent man voluntarily suffer for the crimes of the guilty then yea.

> The atonement is more than just substitution. It is also paying off a debt. it is also covering your sin so that it can be forgiven.

I mean I dont see how jesus's suffering attones for the sins of humanity. This would imply that sin is like some sort of bar tab. I can offer to pay your bar tab for you and so jesus, because he is both human and divine, can pay your infinite sin tab for you by just dying. This doesnt seem to me to be just. No functional legal system opperates that way. I cant offer to go to jail for someone. In fact, im pretty sure that in itself would be a crime.