Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Jenny A]

---

No, the problem is that Steel, and I, and many others read ALL the verses, not just for God so Loved the World.  And we ask questions like why would a omnipotent god need to sacrifice his son in order not to punish eternally for finite crimes? 

---

If someone is opposed to God, how is that a finite crime? Moreover, how is ANY crime committed against an all-holy God finite?

How is ANY crime committed in a single space in time by a finite creature infinite?  Even if god existed and were infinite how would that make crimes committed by the finite infinite?  If I opposed a real god during my finite lifetime, how would that crime be infinite?  And since when if mere opposition a crime?

And if God chooses to take upon Himself the punishment that we deserved for our sins against God, how is that unfair to us (or to Jesus who IS God)?

You are skipping over the "deserved" part.  No crime a human could possibly commit deserves infinite punishment.  If you think so, you have failed to grasp either proportion or infinite. Secondly, it is not possible to take on the sins of another.  Even if I volunteer, hanging me won't excuse a murderer.

And we look at what god is supposed to have actually done (like ordering the death of all Egyptian first born or the death of everyone but young virgin women in whole apparently blameless villages) as opposed to declarations of fatherly love. 

Moses asked nicely. Pharaoh said no. Ten times.

So?  And those first born did what?  Pharaoh didn't die.  His son did, and apparently every other Egyptian's first born son, and the first born sheep, and cows, and everything else first born and male in  Egypt.  Translate this into real moral terms.  If Obama is guilty of murdering people with drones, is it moral to kill his daughters?  Because what god is supposed to have done is worse.  If a king, does evil, is it moral to kill the first sons of all of his subjects?  Surely you can't really believe that?

Apparently blameless? The Canaanites were slaughtered as capital punishment for their immoral lives. These were evil people, and I don't think you are in a position to take their side against God when you are ignorant of just how bad these folks were.

Really?  As far as I can tell from the Bible the only real Canaanite crime was not being god's chosen.

Knowing that you are among the few who might actually read something I recommend, here are two articles that explain this:

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/what-about...-genocide/
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter...canaanites

Sorry, the Canaanites had different gods and religious practices then the Jews.  You might call that evil.  If it involved blood sacrifice of people, I would call it evil.  However, there is plenty of evidence that the Jews did that too.  The story of Issac is about the end of that practice.  But Chronicles and Kings says pretty clearly it didn't really end.

But you can't call the attack of land not belonging to you defensive.  It isn't.  Even if you were attacked while immigrating across a desert.  

And the order was to kill all.  Men, sexually active women, and children.  Do you think the women and kids attacked Jews?

And we don't believe things simply because they are written in an old book, no matter how many people revere that book.  We don't believe extraordinary claims with minimal evidence. 

"Minimal" evidence? That's a far cry from the usual demand for "extraordinary" evidence. But the requirement is met by "sufficient" evidence, and that is available. It's why I post here, Jenny.[/Quote]

No, I do require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.  The evidence in the form of a book proclaiming miracles written long after events is minimal.

We don't believe a book that is contradicted by history and science.  

Gee, what a coincidence. Neither do I.

Ah, so you don't believe in the Bible?  Seriously.  Genesis creation contradicts everything we know about life and physics.  The Gospels contradict other sources particularly concerning the census and birth story.  Exodus contradicts Egyptian sources and archeology.

Ultimately the questions are two:  Is god real (to which I say most probably not); and if the Christian god is real is he good (to which I say obviously not unless like Dritch you define good as whatever god does).

Yes and yes.

There we must strongly disagree.

So I ask you is supporting people in unreal beliefs leading them astray?  If so every apologist is very very guilty.

There is nothing unreal about believing in God, Jenny. Billions of us know that. The fact that you don't is another matter.

Until you provide evidence, that's merely a bald statement.

So Steel listened to people in pain. People seeking answers.  And he let their own rationality find the answers.  And those answers were not only right, but not religious, and they made those people feel better.  Because a world without Yahweh is better.  I'd say he saved people from stumbling.

Right? Are you 100% sure of that, Jenny? I don't think you are.

There's very little I'm 100% sure of.  But I'm 99.99999999999999999999999999% sure.