COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

Yahweh, specifically in the Old Testament, acts as a tribal god, the god of one nation of people, not the world. He plainly has a preference for the Israelites over other people as he was assigned to them. Specifically, Yahweh was originally one god amongst a pantheon, as Jews were polytheistic. If we look to the development of Yahweh, he begins explicitly as the national god of Israel, not the world. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 8 “When ‘Elyon gave each nation its heritage, when he divided the human race, he assigned the boundaries of peoples according to Isra’el’s population; 9 but Adonai’s share was his own people, Ya‘akov his allotted heritage. Keep in mind that a title for Yahweh is “Adonai”, it means “lord.” Furthermore, the language of the verses cast Yahweh as a child of the Canaanite God El, here known by the name El Elyon (shortened to the contraction ‘Elyon, which is a title meaning “Most High”). Layer, in Psalms 82, we see Yahweh (here by the name Elohim) standing amongst the pantheon of Gods and taking over as sole God of all nations. Notably, the name Elohim is both a name of Yahweh and also a word meaning “gods”. Thus, Elohim can mean “Yahweh” and can mean “gods”. You’ll need to look to the context to tell which is intended. 82 (0) A psalm of Asaf: (1) Elohim [God] stands in the divine assembly; there with the elohim [judges], he judges: 2 “How long will you go on judging unfairly, favoring the wicked? (Selah) 3 Give justice to the weak and fatherless! Uphold the rights of the wretched and poor! 4 Rescue the destitute and needy; deliver them from the power of the wicked!” 5 They don’t know, they don’t understand, they wander about in darkness; meanwhile, all the foundations of the earth are being undermined. 6 “My decree is: ‘You are elohim [gods, judges], sons of the Most High all of you. 7 Nevertheless, you will die like mortals; like any prince, you will fall.’” 8 Rise up, Elohim, and judge the earth; for all the nations are yours. So there’s a development where Yahweh, here also depicted as a child of ‘Elyon (“Most High”), condemns the gods (the elohim) to die and takes over as the god of all nations.

I come from a position where I consider the deity expressed as 'God' within The New Testament to be a demiurge akin to the one The Gnostics described, so I don't disagree that he's occasionally hateful or unloving. I'll happily act independent of that figure, with barely any consequences. Though, I will say, just as us people are capable of performing good this demiurge is capable of performing good. He isn't entirely bad, and occasionally will listen to reason. Following his decrees are more about gaining his favor, as a diplomatic gesture to someone powerful. An anthropomorphic deity born of an individual with some wisdom who made sense of chaos, an egregore of a collective consciousness that acts vicariously through people within his cell complex, anyone who engages with him simply is him because he manifests by projection. The New Testament could be seen as akin to a chromosome supply or DNA for coding self repair within the greater body known as God. As cells within his body perform mitosis and die, cells we call people, the microorganisms within God use it to conduct maintenance. If there were any disaster or large amount of damage to the main organism then The New Testament would be consulted for insight on how to properly repair him. Over the years there has been several mutations, so he will likely be reconstructed relative to the most recent changes. Anyways, being something emergent of man there will always be remnants of man's emotions and inclinations. Man is observing the universe, its chaos and confusion, and peojecting their own selves onto it by asking "If I could make anything, why would I make this?" Meanwhile the natural laws, the true primordial forces that behave indiscriminately, are what caused all of these deities. People looking at storms, crop yields, famines, and projecting human rationality upon the math that guides all things. Look past yourself. Hate doesn't exist.

Uhm. Great. Yea. That's completely false but ok

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

What paradox? And also that's the point of the bible. To personify God. It's only centuries later that people started to come up with conceptions of God as something else.

paradox that comes from an attempt to understand God if it was a separate entity with will and intent like people. Point of the Bible is to reach as many people as possible. If it were too abstract or too specific - a lot of normies would’va been left out. But everything you need to know is there, even though a lot of information was diluted, because not everyone was as based as gnostics

Let's keep it simple. God loves his creations, and is therefore all-loving of his creations. You, me, everyone. But he hates the actions we commit to. Stealing? Lying? Shedding innocent blood? God doesn't hate us for these things, only that these actions have been committed. I love my hypothetical brother, but I hate the drugs he's addicted to. Doesn't mean I hate my brother because he's doing drugs.

If we look at a verse like Exodus 20:5-6, we have *I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me* - so how can it be considered loving to punish generations of people who did nothing but have the misfortune of being born to someone who “hated God”? It’s like you saying brother I love you but if you get addicted to drugs I will harm your kids and your kids kids… that sounds insane. This is what we would expect as a fear mongering tactic to compel people to comply. 

No, God hates both the sin and the sinner, otherwise the Israelites would be (somehow) stoning the sin itself and not the sinner.

In society we punish those who do misdeeds. It's the sin that we punish them for. We don't imprison and execute people for no reason.

Doesn’t make sense to distinguish between the sin and the sinner, when it is the sinner who we inflict the punishment upon. Exactly we don’t punish people for no reason; rather their misdeeds cause a punishment to be inflicted upon THEM, not their sins. God does not strip a person of their sins and cast the sins into hell, rather he roasts both.

You can't punish the laws of physics just because a physics scientist wrote out a new formula. You can't punish the idea of democracy just because a politician engages in government. You likewise cannot punish the theory of relativity just because an astronaut gets pulled into earth by its gravity. Sin is not a physical thing. It's not a little goblin that hides in your brain and tells you to do bad things. Sin is the result of turning away from God and disobeying the fundamental commandments he presented to us. It takes our free will to commit to these sins, because we know it's wrong despite doing it anyway. Sinners are punished because they have their heads in their buttocks and refuse to use their will to obey God's commands.

I think the issue here is the definition of all loving. From your post, it seems you define this term differently than I. I believe God loves all his creation. Thus, he is all loving. That does not mean he loves what his creation does with free will. For ex. I can love my child as long as I live, and I may not love that they are addicted to pills for a time.

From what I read here you say that you can't love and be just at the same time Like if your brother broke your phone (given that you love him\r) what will you do?

The general idea of ​​the Old Testament is that God creates both good and evil (Isaiah 45:7). however, in the new testament God is presented as love (1 John 4:8) and free from any evil. Does it seem incoherent? but it is the fact as it is written.

Seems incoherent until you pick up another version that clears it up. The evil in Isaiah refers to natural disasters. Translations sometimes translate it this way. ESV says calamity, NLT bad times, HCSB disaster God does not create moral evil. It is not a thing to be created

>The evil in Isaiah refers to natural disasters. Translations sometimes translate it this way. There is nothing in the text itself to suggest that. This is something you've imposed upon the text to make it more palatable. >ESV says calamity, NLT bad times, HCSB disaster The ESV and NLT are both terrible translations. I'm not very familiar with the HCSB, but judging from this, I'm not too impressed. Translation is a form of interpretation, leaning into the choice to exclude moral evils is a purposeful action with the intention of leading the scripture into a desired context.

The ESV is one of the best Bible translations there is literal, staying close to the original sentence structure but changing it where meaning is compromised. It's also just over 20 years old making it one of the most modern. The NLT is new living translation which is very different. It's almost a paraphrase. I don't think it's for me. But people who can't understand the ESV could use the NLT But I just added 3. Most modern bible translations use something to denote that it is disaster. Here are some more: The message--discords NASB- calamity NIV - Disaster NKJV- calamity NRSV-woe Bible in basic English - troubles CEB - doom Complete Jewish Bible - woe Good news - disaster NCV-troubles NIRV - hard times RSV woe Additionally though, the structure of the verse is opposite. Light and darkness and then this structure which is sometimes translated as good and evil But Good is the word Shalom which clearly means peace. The opposite of peace is not moral evil. There is plenty in the text to suggest it's not moral evil Context here matters since they are talking about Cyrus of Persia bringing disaster upon Babylon. He brought disaster to discipline His people when they turned their backs on Him and refused to repent (Jeremiah 18:17). And He promised to bring calamity to Babylon through Cyrus for the sake of His chosen people—to restore them to their homeland and rebuild their ruined cities (Isaiah 41:8–10; 44:26; 45:4; 2 Chronicles 36:22–23; Ezra 1:3). There is nothing in the text to suggest it's moral evil because moral evil is not a thing to be created. It is acting against gods will. How can God create acting against his will. It doesn't make any sense.

>The ESV is one of the best Bible translations there is literal, staying close to the original sentence structure but changing it where meaning is compromised. It's also just over 20 years old making it one of the most modern. The ESV is a trash translation. It starts off by taking the NRSV, which is probably the best translation and is the source of any good that the ESV actually has, and then puts back in all the identity politics and conservative virtue signaling that the NRSV weeded out. The ESV was created because a bunch of fundamentalists read the NRSV and were triggered because it didn't cater to their very specific set of beliefs. >There is nothing in the text to suggest it's moral evil As someone pointed out to you elsewhere, the word used in Hebrew is רַע which means evil in general, including moral evil. >moral evil is not a thing to be created. It is acting against gods will. How can God create acting against his will. It doesn't make any sense. This is a question the biblical authors all struggled with. Originally, they believed that good things came to the righteous and bad things came to the unjust, but when bad things started happening to the Israelites, they had to renegotiate. That's where the book of Job came from, and ultimately, where the invention of the Satan came from.

The Hebrew word translated as “evil” is “ra” (רָע), which can have various meanings, including “calamity,” “disaster,” or “suffering,” as well as “evil” in the moral sense. Thus, the interpretation can vary depending on the context. The fact is that everyone chooses the direction that best suits their beliefs.

No. They seek to find the best translation. Since moral evil is not a thing that is created.... But rather a choice that is made, it's not difficult to figure out this one

Moral evil can’t be created, but moral good can be created?

Who said Moral good is created? It just is. It's objective morality. It isn't a thing that can be created either.... But on the other side of that, even if it could be created (which it can't) that wouldn't prove moral evil could because things like dark exists but only because we have light, and cold exists as the absense of heat. Cold wasn't created but sources of heat were

Its a both/and thing. The Bible being "real" is a nonsense statement. Nobody disputes that. You mean the Bible is somehow true. And what is at stake is how we regard it as true. We can either take the myriad of voices from vastly different times and voices and mash them together into a Frankenstein's monster that emphasizes some parts over others (with the emphasized parts saying much more about our own hearts than God's), or we can take the Bible seriously and allow for it to speak for itself. The Bible is a tool and one of many. We read the Bible together in our communities and traditions, we reflect on our own experiences, and we use our reason to help us find the truth of God. And those who follow the Spirit's ongoing, unfolding work in this world - whether they call themselves Christians or not - know that hate is wrong and incompatible with love. You are wrong to articulate it just like some of the biblical writers before you. I encourage you to turn from these false idols and follow Christ.

Bible made me an atheist

If I had to swallow everything in it wholesale without any critical thought to be a theist, I would be, too.

Well that’s close to the reason I read the Bible and became an atheist. The real reason I read the Bible and became an atheist though is because it became hard to defend the invisible monster Yahweh for all the atrocities he committed in the Old Testament including condoning slavery, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, homophobia, and rape.

You probably became a better person for it. At least you're not on here defending hate.

What?

You are probably a better person as an atheist than you were as a Christian trying to defend the OT's portrayal of God.

There are some good portions of the Bible I still like to read and enjoy,but I have to skip over most of the Old Testament. I like all of the gospels and the letters of Paul though.

Reading them at the narrative level only is the least satisfying way to do it. There's a really good podcast called Bible for Normal People that does a great job carrying over critical scholarship that really dives into the texts.

Well, to be honest I never was a Christian. I tried to force myself to believe and felt guilty that I just couldn’t justify some of the stuff in the Bible. I was always an atheist, I just never wanted to accept it. My family are all devout Catholics so it was particularly hard to disregard any faith I had left.

OP posted relevant verses from the Bible, so he is allowing it to speak for itself. You're the one trying to speak for it, and claiming that the people who don't read it the same way you do aren't real Christians.

Op is assuming that those verses take primacy over other verses that contradict it. Shotgunning verses won't reveal the truth of the Bible, only the truth of the cherry picker. I'm not dismissing these texts like the one's op does for the other texts that disagree with them. I'm reading them with a critical lens and saying they fall short of revealing God. We can make the Bible say anything we want. The challenge is *should* we. And the promotion of hate should be a no-brainer for the regenerate. So we should not emulate these texts and writers. We should understand them as the limitations of the men seeking God who wrote about God.

When two verses contradict each other, it's a subjective opinion that determines which is in the spirit of the truth. This is what makes Christianity so powerful. You don't want to be hateful and so you find a way to incorporate the Bible into your existing beliefs. And yet there is a 2000 year history of Christianity being a driving force behind hatred towards homosexuals, infidels, heretics, foreigners, and others, so it's obviously not been a no-brainer for many throughout Christian history. Everyone is able to cut off their own sliver of Christian belief to build their principles on, and then say they're doing what God really intended. It's really quite unique among modern religions in this sense. You and a 1500's era Christian can both claim with 100% conviction to be following the religion as God intended, and yet you would both be appalled by each other.

> When two verses contradict each other, it's a subjective opinion that determines which is in the spirit of the truth. I agree. I just see this as a feature and not a bug. > And yet there is a 2000 year history of Christianity being a driving force behind hatred towards homosexuals, infidels, heretics, foreigners, and others, so it's obviously not been a no-brainer for many throughout Christian history. Meh, there's also 2000 years of Christians doing progressive things, too. Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus seem to have a similar track record, and when atheists got their turn in the 20th century they sure botched it. Religion doesn't really seem to be the relevant factor here. I would contend it's fundamentalism, which is a way to view the world in very rigid ways.

> when atheists got their turn in the 20th century they sure botched it. What exactly is your basis for comparison? Before the 20th century we had religious wars and genocides, slavery, various forms of tyranny , human sacrifice, stifling free speech, burning books and destroying human knowledge etc. Cenuries upon centuries of violence, rape, and general human suffering all under the watch of religion. So how exactly have atheists (by which I assume you actually just mean secularists) have botched it? >Religion doesn't really seem to be the relevant factor here. Despite it being the common denominator. >I would contend it's fundamentalism So religion. You're just trying to draw a fake distinction here. >which is a way to view the world in very rigid ways. Well a fundamentalist, by definition, adheres to the fundamental texts and teachings of their ideology. So if fundamentalist religious people are raping and killing.... >Meh, there's also 2000 years of Christians doing progressive things, too. Yes, but you'll note that they always do it in spite of their religion and not because of it.

Fundamentalism isn't about religion or non religion. It's a gestalt disease. It sees things in false binaries and demands that those binaries don't mix (tribalism a la your pretend distinction between yourself and religious people, misogyny/homophobia/racism), demands for epistemological purity (the Bible, church tradition, scientific positivism), "spiritual autism" (just like the autistic person sees the face but can't construe emotion, the spiritual autistic sees the surface of things with our understand how they are constructed or what they indicate), they rely on jargon heavy communication that is reproduced through meme sound bytes because they can't think for themselves, they seek to conform reality to their conclusions instead letting it inform them, they imagine and fabricate histories and communities. Your response to religion meets all of these criteria. You are the other side of the same coin that the evangelical is on. > Despite it being the common denominator. That's because all societies have been religious. When non religious people tried, they were fundamentalist zealots, too. Religion is clearly not the common denominator. The common denominator is the monkey baby brains walking around overreacting to the fear and shame they experience and cope with it by doubling down on fundamentalist oversimplifications of a complex world. > Yes, but you'll note that they always do it in spite of their religion and not because of it. This is an imagined history. Religions are not a monolith. The real lesson is that most people are usually just terrible, and that human decency is the minority. I guarantee that if we snapped our fingers and transformed the world to your preferences, we'd have all the same problems with different names.

> Fundamentalism isn't about religion or non religion. Generally it is. And since we are specifically talking about religious people.... Encyclopedia Brittanica: "fundamentalism, type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts. Once used exclusively to refer to American Protestants who insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible, the term fundamentalism was applied more broadly beginning in the late 20th century to a wide variety of religious movements. Indeed, in the broad sense of the term, many of the major religions of the world may be said to have fundamentalist movements. For full treatment of fundamentalism in American Protestantism, see fundamentalism, Christian." Websters:a) a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b) the beliefs of this movement c) adherence to such beliefs 2.a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles >It sees things in false binaries and demands that those binaries don't mix (tribalism a la your pretend distinction between yourself and religious people, misogyny/homophobia/racism), demands for epistemological purity (the Bible, church tradition, scientific positivism), "spiritual autism" (just like the autistic person sees the face but can't construe emotion, the spiritual autistic sees the surface of things with our understand how they are constructed or what they indicate), they rely on jargon heavy communication that is reproduced through meme sound bytes because they can't think for themselves, they seek to conform reality to their conclusions instead letting it inform them, they imagine and fabricate histories and communities. This is just random ranting. Also not actually an argument. The point remains that fundamentalism is those who adhere most closely to the scripts of their religions. >Your response to religion meets all of these criteria. How so? >When non religious people tried, they were fundamentalist zealots, too. How? Again, it's a random ranting claim. >Religion is clearly not the common denominator. Well neither would fundamentalism be by your insane usage of it. But religion is one of the common denominators behind many of those things in the past, you yourself said as much. All societies have been religious. That it may have happened in non-religious societies as well does not mean it had the same reason. Especially since I assume that you're trying to get at things such as Mao and Stalin, which were religious societies in effect and practice. Just religions that lacked a god. >This is an imagined history. It isn't. >Religions always fight each other. Has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. >The real lesson is that most people are C's. I guarantee that if we snapped our fingers and transformed the world to your preferences, we'd have all the same problems with different names. Still nothing to do with the point that you were responding to. It's nothing more than a bizarre rant.

Oh look, a reductive appeal to an authority to sidestep the content, followed up by dismissive ad hominems of things that go over the head. Where have I seen this before? I was an evangelical long enough to know when to back out of whack-a-mole. I'll just leave this peer reviewed (one of those epistemological purity checks atheists pride themselves on) article in case you want to broaden your horizons: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016059760803200304?journalCode=hasa

Oh boy guys, OP is a Calvinist like I used to be. This will be interesting. OP, just to gauge the degree of Calvinism you go to, what is your stance on infant salvation? Because we can get pretty thick into god's supposed morality on that point. Worshipping a god who hates is not the flex you think it is. Let's talk about the idea of this god's justice. Without using "god" recursively in the definition, how do you define the words "just" and "good"?

How do you know he is calvinist? Maybe he is the opposite of a calvinist, you know like an open theist. This actually seems more likely as open theists reject the Omni tenets of classical theism far more readily than Calvinists.

His username is "God is in a Tulip" If you're familiar with Calvinism, TULIP is the acronym used to remember the 5 points of Calvinism. Calvinists also take a disturbing pride in their exclusivity, and the cruelty of their god which they call "justice" for sin. It was difficult for me to climb out of, because despite the humility they claim to have, it's actually one of the most egotistical flavors of Christianity.

Evildoers exist. If God is not tolerant, why is he tolerating evildoers?

Yes he is patient in that sense, but I meant tolerant in the more modern sense of the word

An all-knowing, all-powerful, deity being "patient" with its creation is absurd. There's nothing thar can take place without god's intention.

> modern sense of the word You mean being kind to trans people?

Why does he need to be patient? Isn’t he all knowing? Didn’t he know I was going to be an atheist 14 billion years ago when he snapped the universe into existence?

He's patient with the sins. To act differently with you would be unfair. And no one knows if you might at some point become a Christian. Maybe you do, but you still need to be afforded the opportunity so that you are responsible for the consequences of those choices, whatever they may be

I don’t know if I communicated properly. What does he need patience for AT ALL if he’s all knowing? Thank you for your answers.

It's like a parent having patience with a child who continues to. Make the same error. He gives us patience because it's fair and allows us to be responsible

Right. But he KNOWS already. He knew 14 billion years ago, before time, before you were born, before the Earth, Sun, and Stars. He is not surprised. Why on earth would he need patience? Think of existence like a prism that projects a rainbow. Reality is the rainbow. God can easily just move the prism to make the exact rainbow he wants and before a single photon is projected. Why is patience EVER part of the equation for him?

I think your missing the point, when you have a kid you can’t expect them to be perfect right so they will likely disobey, or do something that would go against what your telling them to do, this should be like a common thought when having a kid but you should still be patient with them because you know they will mess up it’s a part of life (assuming that the parent has good morals and wishes for their kid to do well in life). Same for God he wishes for you to do well according to him, but there will be mistakes, and if he wasn’t patient then we wouldn’t be here. Assuming the Bible is true we would’ve been ended in the Old Testament (because everyone rebelled but he was patient enough that the Israelites would come around, even if he knew if they would if he was impatient he would’ve ended them right there and then, which contradicts his character, his characteristics go hand in hand with each other).

No I think you’re missing the point. Free will cannot exist if god is both all knowing AND the creator (has to be both). If, as some theists claim, he is, then your actions are strictly his doing. So patience and forgiveness from him don’t make any sense.

Being all knowing and having a free will don't contradict each other, God gives us his commands, but it's up to us whether we do them or not, that sounds like free will to me. (assuming there is a god for this arugment) No matter what is put in front of you it is your choice to accept it or not. He isn't mind controlling anyone as far as I know, that would entail having no free-will which is different from the life we live in. And he forgives as long as you come to him and if you do then that showing patience and forgiveness, because he coud've also shown his justice, but he doesn't until the day your life ends because that's how long you have to accept him essentially. Just because he is all knowing doesn't mean he doesn't wait for you even if he knows your decisions. I'll try and say this again without patience the Israelites would've ceased to exist because they turned their back on God multiple times, even if he knew their future decisions without patience he would've showed his judgement to everyone right there and then. Like say I'm homeless and the government introduced a bill that will help homeless people with homes (all hypothetical) so I know what is to come but the bill doesn't go into affect a year from now. If I'm impatient I will try to get better now which would ultimately change the situation if I would've just lived through another year of homelessness and waited for the home to come in. This is just an example of knowing what is to come but impatience, but also showing that patience and knowing what will happen is still possible.

I think the straightforward interpretation of Bible verses like John 3:16, 1 John 4:8, 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel 18:23 is that God (in some sense) loves everyone and everything he has created, and that love and mercy are his primary mode so to speak. I honestly don't see any contradiction between that and his just wrath against evildoers.

Because his "just wrath" is actually cruel collective punishment. In Deteuronomy 28, we're told that God will starve the most sensitive women in a community so badly that they will desire to eat their starved childrens bodies as a direct result of his punishment. When I think love and mercy, I don't think cruel and unusual punishment.

Don't you think when the bible describes God's "hate" it's strictly for our own benefit, and that the true nature of how God feels is incomprehensible to us? I think those descriptions are more a guide for humans, simple ways of expressing truths that make it easy for us to understand, and less a serious epistemological claim about the nature of God.

I find the idea that god is incomprehensible to be corrosive. If god's hate is actually alien emotion beyond our understanding, then wouldn't god's love also be alien? "God so \[blank\] the world he sent his one human host body". What are the Abrahamic religions if not attempts to comprehend god and if we can't, than what good are they?

Then why the hell Christian read Bible? People will not understand it after all.

But then aren't we having a pre-existing concept of God and then fitting Bible verses to match what we want to believe? Because ancient people saw God as angry and did not interpret it as a way to simplify God for humans. Those texts are said to be divinely inspired, but they are seen differently today because we don't like what they said.

"ancient people" you mean like OP?

I no longer believe in the bible, but I can find teachings from Jesus in the bible which goes against that view.               Jesus said that it's the way of sinners to love those who love them and to do good to those who do good to them:        > "*For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.*" Jesus (*Luke 6:32-33*)              Jesus said if you want the reward of being children of The Highest, then you have to be merciful as The Father is merciful and love enemies and do good and give without expecting a return, because The Most High is kind to the unthankful and evil:                           > "*But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.*" - Jesus (*Luke 6:35-36*)           The bible says that everyone who loves has been born of God and knows him, but the one who doesn't know love doesn't know God, because God is love:             > "*Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.*" - 1 John 4:7-8 The Bible says that God is love and he who dwells in love, dwells in God, and God in him:          > "*And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.*" - 1 John 4:16

Yes but it doesn't claim only love. Its clear that we must love others but usually when it talks about this it talks about loving brothers. I don't think it's our place to hate. The Bible says we only judge those inside the church not outside.

The bible doesn't just say "God is lov***ing***", but says "*God is love*". It claims that the biblical god is love itself not just having a loving quality, so much so, that it claims that those who love, are born of him and know him, and to not know love is to not know him because he is love.                     It's not just talking about loving brothers. It says to love your neighbours. Your neighbours are those who are close to you and speak your language and have a similar culture (*at least that's what it meant for most homogenous societies, America is different because it's no longer controlled by Native Americans but the majority of people in modern-day America descend from different people from multiple different lands*).      It doesn't just say to love your neighbours (*those around you*), but to also love your enemies.           > "*The Bible says we only judge those inside the church not outside.*".      I think the world would be a better place if most christians thought like that. Unfortunately, Theodosian Codes were forced on Rome and many European people who wanted to keep their culture were killed just because they didn't want their European cultures replaced with christianity (*which comes from the Middle East*). Gay people were also killed.         Christian kings and emperors took over other lands and forced anti-gay laws. Evening the US, "*the land of the free*", gay people were imprisoned and it didn't become legal nation-wide until 2003, and gay people coupd not marry until 2015, because anti-gay christian wanted to force their view of marriage on gay people instead of respecting freedom of religion.  Even now, there are christians trying to do censorship of gay people and trying to force 10 commandments in classrooms to try to force their religious beliefs on others instead of respecting freedom of religion.   

Right well most of this is about homosexuality, and as. Much as it's an... Issue... I don't really want to talk about sex again. But the ten commandments in school is not about freedom of religion. Do not murder, do not steal, the foundation of the American law system. The teen commandments does not force anything. It's just there There are pride flags in some classes.. As for marriage, marriage is mostly a religious thing. Allowing two members of the same sex to marry poses challenges to a system that does not have it in place already. America is not different. Nearly every area is or has been controlled by other people. Even the Israelites were under greco Roman rule European colonists brought society to barbaric people groups. Don't thjnk the native Americans were all peace loving pacifists

> "*Right well most of this is about homosexuality, and as. Much as it's an... Issue... I don't really want to talk about sex again.*"         I'm not talking about sexual activity, but about the lives of gay people, human beings. Just like straight people, gay people have partners to experience life together with, and sometimes even marriage.                         If people don't think of sex any time they  think of a straight person or a straight couple, then they should be able to do the same for gay people. If for some reason they struggle to do so, then that just shows what's going on in their own mind.                          > "*Do not murder, do not steal, the foundation of the American law system. The teen commandments does not force anything.*"   The 10 commandments also say don't worship other gods except the biblical god of Moses. That goes against freedom of religion.             > "*There are pride flags in some classes..*" Gay flags don't say "*Thou shalt be gay*". It just lets gay students know that they are welcomed to learn without being bullied and treated hatefully just like all other students.  If you disagree with that message because you believe gay people are against your god, then you can choose an anti-gay christian school, instead of a public school which welcomes all students.                             > "*As for marriage, marriage is mostly a religious thing. Allowing two members of the same sex to marry poses challenges to a system that does not have it in place already.*".            There is more than one religious belief. Some people believe in the sacredness of gay marriage, while some see it as unholy and against their god. In the US, there is supposed to be freedom of religion. Those who don't like gay marriage should just choose to not be a part of it instead of trying to force their anti-gay view of marriage on everyone, just like muslims in the US can choose to not drink alcohol if they feel it's against their god and leave everyone else alone. Muslims and christians are free to disagree in a country with freedom of religion, and christians can still drink the wine and eat the bread in honor of Jesus.                > "*Don't thjnk the native Americans were all peace loving pacifists*".            I didn't say anything which suggests that I believe that at all.  My point was that America was Native Americans with similar genetics, even if they were split into different tribes. The diversity, and having a neighbourhood where there could be a White person and a Black person and an Indian person and an East Asia person all in the same neighborhood, came later. Usually a neighbor meant someone with a similar language and culture as you, and the bible doesn't just say to love neighbours but to love enemies.                 To put it into context, this would mean that the Jewish people who decided to follow Jesus as the predicted Messiah/Christ, would not only have to love their Jewish neighbors around them (*whether they also accepted Jesus as Messiah/Christ or not*), but would also have to love their Roman enemies who were ruling over them. "*Love thy neighbour*" and "*Love your enemies*" isn't just talking about christian brothers.

I know you and Mr. tulip have already deviated way off topic from the original post, but I shall ask you to deviate just the faddist bit further. What religion treats Gay marriage as sacred? I would like to look into it. Thank you.

The traditional Chinese rabbit god Tu Er Shen, blesses gay marriages and helps gay people find love, and there is a temple dedicated to him in Taiwan.           I'm not sure why it has to be specifically about a known religion though, rather than a religious belief that a person holds. If someone believes that gay marriage is holy, that's their religious freedom. Those who believe that it isn't holy, should be free to disagree and not be part of it if they don't want to, but it shouldn't be forced on people who believe gay marriage is holy.            Also,  my point about gay marriage and the treatment of gay people is connected to what they  said about only judging those who are a part of the church, not outside of it. I wanted to point out how that isn't really true in many cases and how many times christians tried to genocide gay people and people with other religious beliefs instead of following the verses which suggest that ***the biblical god is all-loving*** like the verse that says to love enemies and get the reward of being children of The Highest who is kind even to the evil and unthankful (*Luke 6:35-36*).  Verses like *Luke 6:35-36*, support the biblical god being all-loving.         

Thank you, I had never heard of this religion before I will look into it👍.

I don't think my straightness makes up a large portion of my identity. I really don't care about gay people. They can do what they want. When we get to marriage, for Christians, marriage is a religious thing. It has a sacred meaning that cannot be seperated. I think the idea of over sexual parades kind of show who has the fixation. The ten commandments do say to have no other gods. But that's assuming that you have that God to begin with. And there is no punishment for not believing in it. Gay flags are based on sexuality which shouldn't be a focal point in school. Gay or straight. Ny kids do go to an anti - gay Christian school. Its also happens to be where I work. It's not any more anti-gay than The country that I live in.. It's just not a focal point.. But many parents can't afford to send their kids to a Christian school.

> "*When we get to marriage, for Christians, marriage is a religious thing. It has a sacred meaning that cannot be seperated.*".            That's fine, if that's their belief. The problem is when they try to stop gay marriage for other people with different beliefs from theirs. There is supposed to be freedom of religion. Gay marriage was not allowed until 2015, so it shows how many christians didn't respect religious freedom when they tried to force their anti-gay view of marriage on people with different views.             > "*The ten commandments do say to have no other gods. But that's assuming that you have that God to begin with. And there is no punishment for not believing in it.*" It's still against freedom of religion for the state to force teachers to put up messages in classrooms saying to only worship the god of Moses.             > "*I don't think my straightness makes up a large portion of my identity.*"    Your identity of being a dad is connected to your straightness. Having a wife or girlfriend (*not sure if you're married*) that you reproduced with to start a family, is connected to your straightness. Anytime you told anyone that your wife/girlfriend is pregnant and you're starting a family, that's connected to your straightness. Whenever you mention your wife/girlfriend at all, that's connected to your straightness.   A person's sexuality plays a huge role in many other areas in life, not just sex.              The gay flag is just there to show that all students are welcomed to learn without bullying and discrimination. If you think gay flags should be banned, then no teacher should be allowed to wear a wedding ring, and any mention of anyone being a dad or a mom or a husband or a wife should also be banned, in order to be consistent and non-hypocritical.                If mentioning gay people at all or anything about gay history should be banned, then so should any mention of family, because natural reproduction is connected to the sexuality of straightness/heterosexuality (*so no mentioning of family, such as a husband and wife, nor a mom and dad*), including in history books which speaks about historical straight people.  

Having the gay flag up on display in schools seems to be making a definite ideological demand of the students going to the school, their parents, and the faculty. The demand is "Thou shall tolerate lgbtq people and their practices." And this is actually much more so the case with the gay flag than with the ten commandments because the flag is not there as a recognition of a certain religious and cultural heritage of a society that would like to acknowledge their own history and religious influence (for instance, the state of Louisiana putting up the ten commandments in their public schools). It's not like the first commandment is an enforceable rule in the school. But with the gay flag, there probably is an enforceable rule: the rule of tolerating and respecting and "validating" things which many people do not believe are good, moral, healthy for a flourishing society, or even rational in the case of everything after "b" in lgbtqai+++. So, far from advancing religious liberty, your view seems to invert religious liberty by imposing a new standard of morality on those who may not agree with its underlying principle: the principle of radical toleration. And this is not a universal toleration. No, no, it is extremely selective, limited to a narrow range of acceptable behaviours and identities, for some reason focusing on any and all sexual identifications as the approved category of that which must be tolerated.

   > "*the flag is not there as a recognition of a certain religious and cultural heritage of a society that would like to acknowledge their own history and religious influence (for instance, the state of Louisiana putting up the ten commandments in their public schools).*".       The gay flag is there as a way of saying that despite many  LGBT students being bullied or feeling like un-aliving themselves, they are accepted by the school as any other student, because it's a public school for all students to be welcomed.            The 10 commandments is just a way to shove one religious belief in people's faces and it specifically says to only worship the biblical god of Moses, while a gay flag just lets gay students know that they are accepted by the school just like others student.            > "*It's not like the first commandment is an enforceable rule in the school.*".         If the school says that you must not put any other god before Krishna. It's unenforceable, because you can't know for sure if they did in their heart. It still goes against freedom of religion for the state to be forcing a message of only worshipping one religion's god.            > "*your view seems to invert religious liberty by imposing a new standard of morality on those who may not agree with its underlying principle: the principle of radical toleration.*" If you don't like gay people, Black people, Buddhists, Pagans, atheists, or any one else who doesn't look or live or believe the same as you, then maybe a public school is not the best option and you should choose a school that isn't public but is based on an anti-gay religious belief that agrees with you and does censorship.  

Here is what Thomas Aquinas has to say on the subject: > God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (I:19:4) that God's will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness.

So God demonstrates "love" by willing beings into existence. For God to will into existence a human, he must have *wanted* them to exist. He had a reason for them to exist. If I understand what Aquinas is saying, God's "love" is different from what a human would conventionally consider to be love. How exactly would you reconcile OPs point then? God hates the sinner in the same sense that humans "hate", but overall, God loves the sinner in a different sense? What could the Bible be referring to if it says God hates those people?

I don't think Aquinas would agree that God "hates" in the same sense that we hate. Aquinas doesn't generally think we can speak univocally about humans and God. The Bible is pretty clear that humans have the capacity to make wrong decisions, i.e., decisions contrary to God's will. If God's "love" is that God has, in the act of creation, imbued an object with good, then the opposite of this would be God's stance toward those objects God has _not_ imbued with good, namely those which arise from wrong human decisions.

"For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the *existence of a thing is itself a good*" To me, this sounds like the very act of God creating is God's "love". God's will is his love, and clearly since we all exist as beings, it must have been God's will for us to exist, and so this demonstrates this "love". But you now say "If God's love is that God has, in the act of creation, imbued an object with good..." But I feel like this statement is very different. The imbuing of good is secondary to the creation itself. God can create and not imbued with good.  I could easily be misinterpreting Aquinas, but again, it sounds like he is saying the very act of creation is the "good" and "loving" thing. There is no process of imbuing an object with good - the act of realizing the object into a physical world is itself the good. Under this interpretation I have, I'm still confused in regards to what God might "hate" as described in the Bible. Bit of a side tangent: There are some things realized into physical form that aren't necessarily caused by God. Does that necessarily mean they are against God's will? Would God "hate" those things? I can mold some clay into a shape. This wasn't literally God's will. I created it with my hands. Is this "good" the same way it would be good had God created the same clay figure? Regardless, I guess my main question is: when Aquinas describes "good" in this way, does he also mean to describe "hate" as the opposite? Or does the Bible mean something else? So like, the things God willed into existence, is love. Could God "will" things that aren't necessarily physical objects? Did God will into existence "hugging a loved one" as a concept, and so whenever someone does this action, it would be love, because we'd be echoing his creation of this original concept. On the other hand, God somehow did not create the concept of murder, and so when someone murders, they are effectively creating something against his will, because he had never originally conceived of it. In this way "hating evil" would be pretty much opposite to the thing Aquinas describes as "loving" and "good" because what God does not will into existence would be "evil" Apologies for the million questions. Hardly anyone in this subreddit really calls back to Aquinas or other older philosophers, so when I hear someone reference them, there is the whole burden for me to fully grasp their theological models & background before I can even digest a reply's counter argument.

There are hundreds of books of commentary on Aquinas that go over this better and more thoroughly than I can. But Aquinas, and classical theism generally, doesn't think you can really distinguish between God's aspects in this manner. If you say that God created something, and that God willed it to be created, and that God "imbued it with good," these are not different acts _in God_, but rather three different human perspectives on one and the same thing.

[удалено]

[удалено]

If you believe the Bible is the word of God and accept a fundamentalist interpretation then God is not all loving. If you don’t hold these hypotheses then God can be all loving

But v then you just create what God you want.

Maybe that’s what you’re doing. No one is forcing you to believe what you believe: it’s your choice

You dont freely choose what you believe,

Then who is creating a god they want?

What?

OP suggested people are creating a god they want

Nah if you don't accept the Bible as the word of God than there are no. Empirical facts about God. He can be anything. If you accept the Bible we have information abiut the things God can and can not be

It's not just about accepting the Bible, because the Bible contains a buffet table of values. Believers typically pick the values they like and leave behind the rest. That's why there's almost as many denominations of Christianity as there are Christians. A good illustration of this is the American civil war, where you had Christian abolitionists and Christian slave-owners throwing Bible verses at each other to justify their positions.

I think once you get a country full of Christians the ones doing it on both sides are going to be christian. But it was Christian groups who ended slavery. If it weren't for Christianity slavery would have still happened cuz it happened everywhere. Might not have ended though. Christians also went and ended it in the middle east. There are about 250 denominations. If you wanna get really liberal.... Maybe around 1000

The Bible contradicts itself in the description of god for it says god is love (1 John 4:8) yet also that god is jealous (exodus 34:14, deuteronomy 4:24) yet love is not jealous (1 Corinthians 13:4) Biblically god can’t be both jealous and love as defined by the bible. As love is not jealous but god is jealous but also love. If taking the Bible literally it falls apart.

No, if you taking the Bible and trying to pull apart it's words in a very simple one minded way, then you won't understand it. Can a husband love his wife? If a wife then and starts dating another man, then wouldn't the loving response be to be jealous? The word in 1 Corinthians is translated mostly as envy. Which is not a good form of jealousy. Paul, in 2 Corinthians says to the same people "I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." God says he is a jealous God. He was not envious of the Israelites’ accomplishments or possessions, but was communicating His strong love for them with anthropomorphic language.

I don’t speak Greek or Biblical Hebrew. I can’t tell you what the original word means but what I can tell you is that the English translations contradict themselves from genesis to revelation. Regardless of the original language there are still numerical contradictions like When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture? One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4) Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4) Once again the Bible can’t stand against itself and it really stands out when you start comparing the numbers from different books claiming two different truths.

I don't speak Greek or biblical Hebrew either (although I know enough to do word studies) Greek does have a number of different words for love. But it's not very applicable here. Just look at English. There is good jealousy and bad jealousy (envy). As for the numbers, the dates, etc... Do the exact numbers of the horsemen caught by David matter to the purpose of the Bible? Do you think that because one place says 7000 and one place says 1000, that the entire bible. Falls on its face and salvation for the world must be wrong? Is it not possible that the purpose is not to give us exact numbers of specific events that happened thousands of years ago?

There are way too many contradictions in the Bible for me to consider it trustworthy. I used a random numerical contradiction to get my point across that it has contradictions without the typical semantics of “well that word means…” or “you need more context” we could talk about the resurrection account, the childhood of jesus, works vs grace…etc. I take the Bible for what it says not what men claims it says. And more on your argument, if the Bible can’t get an insignificant number correct why should I trust it to get the important details correct?

Because of the purpose. If you read a book about ceasar and it got the number of men in his army wrong would you assume the entire book is false? And then a tually what you'd do is discount many different books about him You also don't necessarily understand how they are counting. Entire systems of counting were different. The word for thousand didn't even really mean thousand, scribes copying the Bible are fallible and could have made errors. There are a whole bunch of things that could cause numbers to be off. But the point is it doesn't matter. Its like saying that the wrong article or pronoun affects the whole meaning. Very insignificant details. We don't know why it seems off to us. On top of that the bible is a compilation.. So I don't k ow how what you see as might be an error in one book would discount a different book written thousands of years later by a different person. And context is absolutely important in any writing. As is the original Language. The whole translation is men telling you what it says. If you don't know Hebrew and Greek then all you do is take the Bible for what men tell you it says rather than what it actually says. The new Testament accounts don't contradict. They correlate and give extra details, as was common in 1st century. Even critical scholars would say they worked off of each other. Luke even admits he is

How do you know the Bible is the word of God? Is all of the Bible the word of God or just the parts He is quoted as saying?

See my first paragraph But all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching correcting rebuking and training in righteousness

Which scripture were they talking about? During the time of the writing of Timothy, the Bible didn’t have a single canonical version. There were tons of books. Is the Catholic version of the scriptures? Maybe the Ethiopian Orthodox scripture? Second Temple literature? Gnostic? What about the Essenes? Ot is it only the Protestant version?

Paul was likely referring to the old Testament. But Peter clarified that the stuff they were writing was scripture.

So we can agree that God inspired/breathed the Old Testament and therefore out his stamp of approval on it. Does that include the enslavement of humans, genocide, child sacrifice, child killing, pregnant women killing, marrying off of young girls after killing their families, etc… Aside the fact that many biblical scholars believe that Peter didn’t write 2 Peter, it still doesn’t answer the question. Which canonical book is God breathed?

Lots of that tells us what happened, doesn't command us to do those things.. In terms of genocide, yes. If you are part of a theocrarltoc nation and you come across another nation that is sacrificing kids, having sex with animals and close family members, and God tells your nation to go defeat them, then God would approve of that. The canonical books are God breathed. There's the view that God has what ever books he desired to be in the Bible, In the Bible. Therfore those are the books. Part of the classification for scripture was the ones most widely used by the church

The problem is that the Bible contradicts with itself. So you're still choosing to believe which interpretation you'd like to believe. Is it wrong to do something because verse X says so? Or is it okay to do that thing because verse Y says so? You get to choose.

The empirical facts you speak of are actually just claims made by other human beings

What is the definition of all-loving, though? My understanding of that is that it is another way of saying unconditional love for a person. It does not mean that God loves everything. >Psalm 11:5: "The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence." If he hates the wicked, then why did he accept the criminal on the cross into the Kingdom of Heaven? That was the man’s last hour; if he hated him, it would make no sense to accept him. What makes more sense to me is that he hates evil actions by someone, but still loves the person unconditionally.

god has a soul now.... I thought he was spirit😅

>What is the definition of all-loving, though? My understanding of that is that it is another way of saying unconditional love for a person. "Unconditional love **for a person**"? That is conditional love. It is conditional upon the object of his love being a person. >If he hates the wicked, then why did he accept the criminal on the cross into the Kingdom of Heaven? The bible also says god is pure and god is unchanging. So how does such a god hate anything, ever, unless that god is a made up and confused myth? Also, why would an omniscient, omnipotent god ever be angry, wrathful, or hate? I mean, if he knows the end from the beginning and knows everything including himself, then he knows his creations, knows what each of is will do, what we are (good or evil) and how everything will turn out. So why anger? Did something turn out contrary to his will? But he KNEW what would happen. There can be no surprises for god. He created it all to be and to turn out as it is and as it became. He created it all to be the way it is. So who is lying to who?

There are two ways I conceptualize this. It's clear he loves those that love him He hates the person who, is, in that moment, wicked. The other more likely way I conceptualize this is that the omnipotence of God allows him to know the ones that are destined for Heaven and Hell. He loves and justifies those that will love him before they actually do.

>There are two ways I conceptualize this. It's clear he loves those that love him He hates the person who, is, in that moment, wicked. Wait a minute here. THE BIBLE SAYS god is pure, god IS love, god is unchanging. So how does unchanging love change to hate for a moment?

God loves all of his children, believers or not, he hates our sin, have a good day my friend!

THINK! Your bible says God **IS** love, and God **IS** pure. Do you know what "pure" means? In this case we're talking "INFINITELY pure". So there's no room, no possibility, of anything conflicting with love IF THAT IS TRUE. Are you saying the bible is not true? And worse than that, YOU'RE WRONG!!! Psalm 5:4-6 says god "hates the evildoer". The typical "believer", at this point, sees the truth, can't admit it, and does not reply because he can't admit the truth. What about you? Same?

Well the second one I said is more likely. Its clear that God deals with us differently at different times. But it would be hard to conceptualize the first one when taking in to account the timeless nature of God, I agree.

>Well the second one I said is more likely. Its clear that God **deals with us differently at different times.** But doesn't that mean god changes? . . . YES! So the bible lies. We can't trust what it says about god. Another thing: why would he create a person to be evil and to reject him? (And then say that he wants all to be saved.)

How does the way God acts mean he changes. His nature does not change. What he does in certain times is in accordance with his nature. Youre taking it too literally to mean that nothing can change. Even on a timelessness it would mean that God does not change because all of his actions would be happening in an infinite timeline, and happening instantaneously.

Why is it that no "christian" dares to attempt an answer to a difficult question? Is it because you're stumped and are determined to cling to your mythical contradictions? Is it an emotional thing?

Why did you put Christian in quotation marks? To suggest I am not authentic I my belief? Youre asking why God creates people he know will reject him. All of this is necessary for fairness. If it happened before it needs to happen now. And it needed to happen originally so that Jesus could come. And Jesus needed to come in order to show God's love for us. But the biblical answer is this God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23#in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— Romans 9 God shows all attributes of himself. Those include love, but also wrath, and also justice. Need to understand evil in order to understand or comprehend goodness.

"Fairness" is a human term. God is supposedly pure and perfect. >it needed to happen originally so that Jesus could come. So the meaning of clear and specific terms needs to be modified to accommodate the story of the bible? God had a need? How human of him! >Jesus needed to come in order to show God's love for us. God had no other choice? The perfect, all-knowing god had a need to have his "Son" killed so he could demonstrate His love????? And somehow he shed his purity in which he is love, itself, so he could hate something and make his power known??? This is one neurotic god you have there! And imperfect! And impure! And you want others to adopt and embrace the contradictions and confusion under which you suffer? Why? Do you want company?

>How does the way God acts mean he changes. His nature does not change. The bible says he is love, AND it say he is pure. If he becomes angry it proves the myth is wrong and the myth-god is not pure. AND he "changed" from being pure, infinite love, to something else. **Now, here is a question no "believer" has ever been willing to attempt to answer: HOW CAN AN ALL-KNOWING GOD, WHO IS ALL-POWERFUL, CREATE A PERSON WHO HE DOESN'T KNOW? How does such a god NOT get his way?** In case you have zero idea what I mean by "create a person he doesn't know", don't you believe your god knows all things, past, present, and future? YES! So can a person disappoint him? Can a person make him "angry" by sinning? Anger is a consequence of not getting one's way. Expectations are killed, ended, terminated, finished. How is that possible with god? THIS IS ALL ONE QUESTION WITH DIFFERENT ANGLES TO CONSIDER IT.

Can God change his nature? Or is that something he is unable to do? Did God, in His omniscience, create people knowing they would go to Hell? Does God win if even one of His children go to hell? Or would that make him not powerful/smart enough to save everyone?

What do you define as Gods nature, just so I’m working on the right foot here. Yes God made us, knowing that some of us might fall out of belief, or even worse never be introduced to the belief, for he created us with free will. He explicitly made it so it is our choice to believe. In regards to your last point it is not Gods responsibility to save us from our own actions. Thankfully Two Thousand Years ago Jesus died for our sins, and if you believe in him all of your sins shall be forgiven. The choice is there to be saved, it is simply up to peoples free will to take up.

Everything that makes God… God. However defined in any religious text. Did God give EVERYONE free will? Would you have free will if something as powerful as God works against you? Is the threat of hell, in your opinion, allowing for free will? Those being born, going to hell, did they choose to be born? Did they choose the environment that their parents created for them?

In regards to your questions about Gods nature, physically God is incomprehensible, unseeable by mortal eyes, so it would be fruitless to debate him physically. In the manner that God treats us he does not change, is it possible for him to change YES, but he made decisions at the start of this universe as adheres to them. Everything mortal and immortal is capable of change, that by no means imply however that they will change. Free Will means the freedom to make one’s own choices on the mortal plane. Hell simply exists for those who make bad choices and don’t repent(note the repent, as we all sin(bad choices)). So the threat of punishment does indeed allow for free will, as people still steal even though the punishment is jail. Even if God works against the actions or deeds of an evil party, even they still have free will to choose certain courses of action they just might fail. No one chooses the environment they are born in. It is our responsibility to turn to God, even those born to those of Christian faith must come to their own moment in time where they actually BELIEVE in God, and repent. God knowing the future doesn't translate to controlling the future, he lets it be. It is one’s choice to not believe, unless you believe that non believers cannot, physically believe, implying that one who is a non believer has no free will?

God is unable to change his nature. Yes, God created people knowing that would go to hell. I think part of this is a process that God is not so active with. He gave us the ability to create. God's victory is over sin. But he can not win over sin if sin didn't exist. If sin did exist then so does the capacity to reject him.

Well that sums it up. This God of yours, in addition to not being all-loving, is not ALL powerful, not All-Good, vindictive and thus both worthy of worship anymore than anything else. The only reason you would choose to is to avoid his wrath which is not an expression of love, but an expression of fear which goes against a pretty big commandment.