But don't you know?

[TubbyTubby]

That's the most childish stuff I've seen in awhile, you must still be in grade school, right. You truly haven't studied the Bible, all you've done is throw out a bunch of personal childish notions and call them fact, then you rant about Christians, tough Mr. Strawman.

GC

Just out of interest GC, do you believe that rainbows are a sign from god?

[Chas]

That's the most childish stuff I've seen in awhile, you must still be in grade school, right. You truly haven't studied the Bible, all you've done is throw out a bunch of personal childish notions and call them fact, then you rant about Christians, tough Mr. Strawman.

GC

That's rich coming from someone who believes that Christianity is true.
Your theology is absurd and infantile.

[Quatermass]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

- Epicurus.

[Esquilax]

Notably, none of the theists who disagree with what has been said have bothered to explain why in even the most sparing of detail. They just dismiss it out of hand, insult the person writing it, and expect that this is sufficient.

It is not.

[Brian37]

That's the most childish stuff I've seen in awhile, you must still be in grade school, right. You truly haven't studied the Bible, all you've done is throw out a bunch of personal childish notions and call them fact, then you rant about Christians, tough Mr. Strawman.

GC

The God character's first 4 commandments deal with him, hardly selfless, "look at me". Then when he finally gets to humans at 5 promotes the same blind obedience to parents the same he wants for himself. But what if those parents are abusive to each other or the kid? And nothing in those commandments banning rape or slavery.

The top one is actually the opposite of what the First Amendment of the Constitution says, which allows you to worship any god you want or no god at all. The governments that enforce worship are called theocracies and are fascist states.

And in that same book it goes on to make stupid dietary laws and even laws about how your clothing should be made which our secular west ignores for the most part.

You think we are being mean to you by pointing this out, no. We are merely telling you that there is no good way to paint this character as valuing secular law and consent of the population as to who rules over them. The only thing as a literary character that god can rightfully be called by definition is a dictator. 

Your emotions allow you to cherry pick what you want instead you should be intellectually brave and go outside your comfort zone in order to see what we see. 

---

GC there is a reason the bible was written like it was, an even in polytheism back then, most societies lived under kings so the god/s they worshiped were the king in nature just like the societies they lived in reality. Polytheism and monotheism falsely attributed their power and fortune as coming from the divine.

A king is a dictator. The royal family of Saudi Arabia are a dictator family. The royal family of England started out that way, but because of enlightenment and secular law, that family has been watered down to being museum pieces and diplomats at best. But the feudal system was the norm at the time so religions wrote their myths an gods reflecting the societies they lived in at the time.

The one true tribe motif has to have a hero and a cause.

[John V]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he has his own purposes for allowing it.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

                                             - alpha male

[Brian37]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he has his own purposes for allowing it.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

                                             - alpha male

Um I think that is Epicurus. 

[John V]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he has his own purposes for allowing it.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

                                             - alpha male

Um I think that is Epicurus. 

Re-read the fourth line.

[Brakeman]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he has his own purposes for allowing it.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
                                             - alpha male

Um I think that is Epicurus. 

Re-read the fourth line.

Fucking up the forth line, as you have, is covered in the last two lines..

[Nope]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he has his own purposes for allowing it.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

                                             - alpha male

What purpose could infant rape or the existence of serial killers serve?