Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

I have read the bible.

Good! Then you should know that it never teaches that unregenerate people are God’s children.

Yet you remain wrong. Man created God.

Nope, God created man.

For an all powerful God, why did He have to put on the Broadway show? Surely, an all powerful being can eradicate sin with a snap of his fingers. Why sacrifice his son?

Because He’s also an all-just God, so He must poor out His wrath upon sin.

Nice point. Here we have our local Calvanist spewing his divine election crap--something I'm unfortunately very familiar with--and he cannot even see how ridiculous and illogical it is for God to sacrifice his "only son" for meaningless objects of his wrath.

He didn’t sacrifice His son for meaningless objects of wrath; He sacrificed His son for His adopted children in order that He may be glorified through their redemption. I honestly believe you spent your time in church sleeping.

As a former Christian, Calvanism (or Reformed Theology) was my final stage of progression before graduating to non-theistic views.

Then why can’t you accurately state what Calvinist’s believe?

If it's a society that is driven by such illogical urges (race/religion-based hatred) then its morals will reflect that. Replace "Jews" with "Canaanites" or "Hittites" or "Amorites" and moral progress means exterminating all Canannites, Hittites, or Amorites. Hopefully, humanity will work harder to overcome the desire to segregate ourselves and each other and create a society where we can mark progress in ways that don't include harming one another.

I am not following you at all on this one. You admit that given your definition of morality genocide would be moral progress, but then you make an appeal for societies not to follow that pattern. If it really was moral progress then why should societies not follow that pattern? That does not seem to make any sense; shouldn’t all societies desire to progress morally?