Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

It's not that fighting for the rights of yourself or others is unimportant. It's just that you may not win, and you need to live that way (if you are the person being persecuted). The scrawny kid will probably never grow muscles and throw the bully into the dumpster. So be it. Christians once were persecuted, and they didn't start riots when they were arrested and tortured. They prayed. Winning your fight isn't what gives your life value, although that's what everyone notices. It's the kind of person you were in it.

So not condemning slavery is part of this pacifist philosophy? Could you explain to me, why god cared so much about what you do in life, and how you live, down to all the details in the OT, if all that shouldn't matter if you're a good person?

Paul was persecuted for his entire career as a missionary and died a martyr. He knew what suffering meant. But he didn't care because he knew it didn't matter, and that's what he preached.

What has this got to do with anything? He didn't care, that doesn't surprise me, he likely thought he was going to heaven, he was a true believer, right?

Jesus' teachings are relevant to much of the OT, but not all of it. But I did describe why a woman would seem less important in a warlike, nomadic desert people.
I've spent 10 pages on the Tenth Plague. Are you going to open up that can of worms all over again?

No, I didn't want to bring anything up. But of course it's clear to me how a nomadic tribe doesn't understand equality. But it's in the bible. Explain to me which part is written by the nomadic tribe, and which part by god?

I had a feeling someone would bring up the Flood when I said that. Weren't Noah and his family descendants of Adam? The flood is a legend of how God preserved the good in his creation and got rid of the bad. Those who didn't want him were uprooted from the earth he created, and those who wanted him were preserved. Creation was preserved in the Flood.

he killed everyone on earth except noah. if we want to pretend this actually happened, it was an act of destruction and not preservation. when you wipe out 99% of something, you're not preserving it, you're destroying it.

"21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:21-22
Hate is sinful and draws you away from God. Insulting another person is hateful. Hate is sinful. Sin is ungodly. Therefore, you are drawing yourself away from God and closer to a place where God is not (Hell).

Hate is not a bad thing.

God's incredibly specific laws of the OT were meant to distinguish the Jews as God's people who preserved God's law in a world that had forgotten it. But these laws were only part of the formula. In the OT, the physical was used to indicate the spiritual, but in the NT, Christ showed the full path to salvation was based on the spiritual.

If Judeo-Christian theism was based off of the promise of heaven, the Bible would be more top-down. There is little, if any, mention of life after death in the OT, let alone promises of glory and joy, contrary to Islam.
Paul did describe his hope in a "prize" in 2 Timothy 4:8, but, he is thankful in suffering for much better reasons than the stereotypical Christian motive.
"More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Romans 5:3-5
"We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies." 2 Corinthians 4:8-10
"That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death." Philippians 3:10
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." Colossians 1:24
Suffering brought Paul closer to Christ's suffering, and he was glad in the experience of it because his suffering was inherently good, not because it would soon be over. Or else he would have said a few Masses and killed himself.

God's laws in the Torah were made for the Israelite people to guide them spiritually, so it drew on much of what they already knew with their OT culture. Surviving in the desert was hard work, not to mention the constant fighting, so men played a critical role in supporting families. Women didn't fight wars, and so they generally worked at home, not to mention that men protected them from those who would overpower and exploit them. Men and women were equal, but fit into different caches of society. That's all.

God never destroyed man itself. He destroyed many bad people, but he didn't start over. Humanity continued with ordinary Homo sapiens, just as it had before. Noah himself was a vessel of God preserving the human race.

To wish bad of somebody else is a bad thing. Hate is not inherently evil. God hates.

---

The concept itself is logically impossible. A perfect being with an ultimately perfect will cannot subject itself to its own will.
What you are suggesting is "I declare that I shall be unable to declare something."
A similar question would be, "Can God make himself disappear?" or "Can God take away his own power?"

Exactly! The concept is illogical because the concept of OMNIPOTENCE is illogical.

As for your perfect being comment, how do you know that? What is your logical premise for the assertion that a "perfect" being with and ultimately "perfect" will cannot subject itself to its own will?

Okay, let me rephrase the question then since you keep on dancing around.

Can God create and equally powerful God?

I actually decided that I needed to revise my answer and put it in a previous post:
"God CAN do all these things. The reason he doesn't and never will is because it is contradictory to his nature, and, as God, his nature will remain constant because he wills to keep it that way. God WILL NOT make a rock he can't lift because he is all-powerful. God WILL NOT cease to exist because he promises to be with his people, and he WILL NOT lie because he is truth. God WILL NOT change, nor is he under the inclination to do so, because he [isn't human]. That fact in itself will not change, in the same way two plus two will not change to five under any circumstances."

God has the physical capability to sin. The reason this sounds absurd is because we know the Christian God to NOT sin. That is because his omnibenevolent nature does not change. God refuses to change because of the responsibility he has to humanity not to change because he is their God.
In the same way, God WILL NOT clone himself because the universe is under his control alone, and needs to remain so so that only the events he ordains occur because of the responsibility he has to the created universe.

---

Both Jews and Christians believe there was an empty tomb.

I would beg to differ.

As for the rest of your answer, it is all made with a presupposition that everything in the bible is historical fact. Given the inconsistencies of even the synoptic accounts of christ's life, and the absolute absence of any corroborating contemporary accounts of any of the other miraculous events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection we can conclude that the historicity of such an event is mighty suspect. (i.e. the tearing of the veil in the temple, the dead walking witnessed by many, a solar eclipse lasting as long as the gospels record, etc.)

At least some of these things would have been noticed by somebody and recorded somewhere other than some faith documents without clear authorship written decades after the fact and canonized by councils with clear political motivations.

But you believe what you want, dude.

I didn't take the Bible as fact, but realized that it was authored by Christians. Do you disagree with that?
So if Christians say bad things about themselves in their own book, such events are more credible than events that support Christianity.
The humility of Christ in a Roman society is a negative. The fear and misunderstanding of the apostles to the point that Christ chides them is also a negative. Christ being brutally killed and not taking revenge on the Jews in a culture of revenge is also a negative. Therefore, it is more credible and less likely to be understood as dishonest propaganda.
As for the empty tomb, we are yet to find evidence of Christ's corpse having remained in the ground.