Given the internal inconsistancies within the bible, yeah it is illogical.Erythrean Thebes wrote:.You still believe that a god, specifically the Christian god exists,that is a claim and state as suchAsking you to actually support your claims is not 'atheist vitriol' Thebes.
No, it isn’t. My claim, though, is not that the Christian religion is true. Nor am I claiming that God exists. I am not willing to subscribe to either proposition. The only thing I am claiming, is that according to its premise, the Christian religion is logically consistent, it is not illogical.
No duhOne therefore accepts the premise of the religion, and can be a Christian, or does not accept it, and is not a believer.
I disagree, mainly because the internal stories of the bible are contradictory.It’s not ‘obvious,’ because many atheist arguments are that the logic of the Christian religion is nonsensical, and there is no way to believe and also be a logical thinker. But that is not true.
It is not cheap at all, given the internal inconsistencies and the fact that all the arguments for a god have failed in some way or another.An atheist argument that the logical premise for Christianity is cheap, and not compelling, one the other hand IS valid, but, it is also an opinion, and not a fact.
But that is not the logical inconsistancies the most atheists point out...My claim is that, if you subscribe to the premise of the religion, one of the key tenets of which is the intrinsic evil of humanity, then the partially desolate condition of man’s relationship to God has justification and is also logically consistent. My claim is NOT that such a premise is necessarily true.
So that includes getting drunk and getting angry at your son for not covering you and making him into a basic slave?In regards to this particular point, your quote above, the Bible accounts for different types of people, some of whom are good, and some of whom are evil. Figures such as Noah, Esau, Joseph, and Christ, adhere to the original code of conduct which humanity observed in the perfect world of Eden.
Tell that to JOb who lost all his children.You will see, God doesn’t punish those people. He gives them assistance throughout their lives and he ultimately repays them for injuries they suffer.
That pnly makes your god look like an ass.On the other hand, people like Cain, Jacob, the Pharaoh of Egypt, who are like Adam and commit sins willfully, are tormented by God for their sins.
Given that god created people the way they are, no it really isn't.It may be debatable whether or not that is fair, but if you are accepting the premise of the Bible in the first place, it is fairly clear how it would be justified to punish a person for doing wrong.
Not when there is collateral damage. not when the reason people are evil is because of the god who is punishing them. Not when it would be entirely possible that no evil exist in the first place but the god's decisions means it did.Do you think that the notion that evil people deserve punishment and good people deserve assistance requires justification?
Except it wasn't treachery, tell me, how are two people who do not know good from evil supposed to be tracherous, they do not even understand the idea. How are they supposed to know they should obey god, they do not know the concept of good or evil. Your God punished all of humanity because he placed a brightly colored very delicious cookie in front of children, told them not to eat it, and then got angry when someone convinced them to eat it.It is not my opinion that it is fair for one evil act at the beginning of time to have ruptured our relationship to God, such that he gives us no succor on Earth and only offers a certain reward for good character after death. I will not make that claim. However, I do contend that it is not illogical, and I claim that it is consistent with the premise of the Bible that mankind was corrupted by sin forever because of the treachery of Eve and Adam.
Except that the very world of the bible is nonsensical.You may not believe such a thing, nor do I believe it without reservation, but that is not what I am debating with you. I am only debating if it logically follows that ‘within the world of the Biblical reality, the barren state of mankind’s relationship to God is justified by the events which are purported to have directly led up to it.’
Very true, so why believe it?I contend that it’s not perfect, nor infallible. We both know that it was written in pieces over a long period of time.
So why did they eat from the fruit if they where not intrinsically evil.In the Bible, humanity was not intrinsically evil until they were corrupted by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Crime is not something that can be passed down over the generation. There is a reason we do not say that a child is at fault for the crimes of the father.But, in accordance with the commonly held view of genetics and hereditability in ancient times, the corruption became embedded in the seed of Adam and passed down to the coming generations.
Why should I except the premise that the Biblical god exist?Again, I do not claim that it is true, I claim that if you adopt the logical starting point that the Biblical God exists, then this story is logically consistent with the events purported to have happened both before and after it.