Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

For all I know, the Exodus could have never happened.

You could get a much better idea of this narrative's historical accuracy than "for all I know", if you wished to. Simply discarding it is probably the simplest way of dealing with any problem it's inclusion might cause for some other claim, though.

But this is a story forms part of a narrative of the same Christian God and what he does with mankind.

-That- is the troubling part, if we wish to excuse the narrative for what it is. It's foundational, -if not the god that delivered his people from bondage - then which god again?

As for its historical validity, that is irrelevant to whether or not the same loving God in the Bible works in the Exodus.

I think that you aren't giving the narrative a fair shake. For the christ you wish to be the fulfillment of prophecy the god of exodus must be invoked. They must be the same god, loving or not (and lets be clear, a loving being can do atrocious or incoherent things, love isn't any hedge against this if we are to use ourselves as any example). We could, very easily given the narrative, say that "god" -in exodus- did something inexplicable and altogether shitty - but that in some other (later, for example) part of the narrative "god" did explicable, not-so-shitty things.

Is my explanation illogical? Apparently, you see it, and I don't. Are you going to justify your belief with evidence or are going to keep saying that its true?

I'm sorry, I thought that you had finally come to an understanding here? It's not an issue of belief (mine or anyone else's). Your defense is not sound because
A: It is not valid
and
B: You have not demonstrated that the premise is true

It is not valid because it is entirely comprised of a logical fallacy (which you then attempted to drive ad naus....double whammy).

If your defense is not sound or valid, it is -by definition- illogical. My evidence for this is your argument, and the criteria that must be met to have formed a coherent or logical argument- which have not been met......

What part of this is giving you trouble?

And the logical fallacy is…

---

Ooh, how nice. Let's change the analogy to a detention in a school.

Two students who commit the same infraction should be assigned the same punishment as a result.

The phrase "two wrongs make a right" represents a dogma of Christianity: God's love and mercy.

It is not a Christian invention and Christians don't own the patent on it. It is a concept that Christianity happened to adopt.

In OT times, not only did this law not exist due to Adam's sin, but the people of the time implemented a law of retribution and only saw justice in it.

Adam was not a real person. Elite rulers generally implemented laws and enforced them with military might. It was not a situation where the people of nations got together and agreed upon the rules they would follow.

If you are being beaten up by a strangers, you have two options: a) two wrongs don't make a right b) they will deserve what they get.

Vengeance fixes nothing. Even God eventually realized it.

'Eternal punishment' (Hell) is as poor a term as its definition: "Where the bad people go." Hell is rather a state of separation from God that is freely chosen by souls that do not want to be with him. Hell is not "fire and brimstone", rather, that is a description of what it is like to live without God in a person. The 'damned' live forever in the absence of a God they did not want to live with.

Christians need to really unify their opinion on what hell is. It makes talking about hell very difficult.

If Adam's sin (a theological concept and not a historical assertion) makes it so that people live by a code of retribution, the principles of this code need to be channeled by the law of the God who is still the ruler of these people (the Jewish law). After centuries of this law, it comes to completion at a chosen time through Christ.