Who was "he" talking to?

[Tonus]

Yes, Jesus came first to the Jews and then the gentiles, meaning they(the Jews) were suppose to take the message of Christ to the world.

I understand that, but I was just thinking that there can't be such a thing as a Jewish Christian.  If a Jew accepts Christ, he's a Christian.  The rest of your response brings up an interesting question-- if the Jews of the time had accepted Jesus as their Messiah, would he have conquered the rest of the world, instead of saving it?  That is what they were waiting on, isn't it?

I understand your position and why you believe there's no guiding hand but, why blame/or discount God because of the mistakes humans make.

I'm not blaming God for man's mistakes, I'm just realizing that our mistakes are simply that.  We are what we are, and religion is just a manifestation of our desire to form strong social bonds and us/them social groups.  It's a very strong instinct and it shows up in many ways and it clashes with the concept of large, connected societies that we have built over the decades.  It's gone from something that helped us survive to something that threatens our survival.  Very frustrating, IMO.

The Egyptians saw those plagues and did not believe, even to the destruction of the army. If you were to see something similar would you believe that God did it. Or would you look for a scientific explanation and say that we will find it someday.

A string of such large-scale events with no other explanation would make it impossible to deny that there was a powerful supernatural force taking action.  And that is what makes it curious that the people who were there seemed so unimpressed.  The Israelite slaves watched an entire sea open up to allow them to walk on dry land, and yet when they got to the other side they began to complain that God was doing a poor job.  When Moses was in the mountain receiving the ten commandments, they formed a fake god out of gold.  How could anyone behave in such a manner?  Seeing the hand of an actual God work miracles, they decided to worship a hood ornament instead.  That just doesn't make any sense.

There are many on this forum who said they searched and found God but then decided He wasn't real, so you tell me how sincere were they to begin with, how was it they found something they do.not believes exists.

I doubt you'll find anyone who found God and then "decided" that he wasn't real.  I think it's more likely that they beleived for a long time and then realized that they could not verify that God was real, and that the concept didn't make sense as explained by existing religions.  Our willingness to accept things that are told to us, and to cling to those beliefs in the face of thoughts to the contrary, are instinctive and difficult to overcome.  Especially in cultures where belief in God is treated as axiomatic and where nonbelievers face pressure from their community or society.

The Bible doesn't say they ate from the "Tree of Life," they did not have to to live forever. As long as they did not disobey God death would not have come.
You say you took the time to make sense of Christianity, yet you missed this important information. Could it be that you have missed even more important things.

Genesis 3:22-23 says that God banned them from the garden so that they would not eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.  It does not say anything else about the matter of their immortality.  I don't think I missed the information.  If the account requires some additional interpretation to make sense of it, well that's the point I am making.

You say they took a route, do you mean they took a route to death? Why would they do such a thing that would make no sense at all. If that's what you meant maybe you should rethink this position.

Yes, I am saying that their actions do not make sense.  The story does not make sense if we take it as a literal account that actually happened.  Even as a parable, it's a bit weak.

Here's another example of what you have missed.

I don't think that's an example of what I missed.  I think it's an example of how we can insert lots of conjecture into a scripture to make it mean what we want.  It's why there are so many differing interpretations of what various parts of the Bible mean, and why there are so many denominations.  The confusion would have to be deliberate if God and Jesus were real.

In my experience if one is sound in their belief they have nothing to fear from challenges, I think you can see I have no fear of being challenged.

It's an example of how bias can work with something as open to interpretation as the Bible to allow us to hold beliefs in the face of such challenges.

I was once a Jehovah's Witness, which is why I use them as an example so often.  They are a good example of how the Bible can be interpreted to defend many differing beliefs.  Some of them are good examples of people who feel so confident in their beliefs that they do not fear a challenge.

---

No, God can't be anything other than who He is, God can't decide to be terrible, evil or whatever you would label it.

What I am saying is that God cannot be any of those things because the actions that we typically label as terrible or evil would automatically be good if God performed them.  God doesn't perform an action because it is good-- the action is good because God performed it.  Thus, God is good.  Not by our standard of what is good or bad --remember, he is above our moral standards and judgments-- but by his own standard that we cannot question.

I'm not the one who defined God in such a manner.  Apologists have defined him this way in order to deal with the actions that God takes or commands and which can be considered to be wicked.  By putting him above human moral standards, we create a being whose every action is beyond our capacity to categorize.  God cannot be judged for wiping out the world with a flood, or ordering the rape and slaughter of non-combatants and the pillage of goods and livestock, or any other of the things that we might otherwise consider terrible or evil.  So why would you expect him to stop doing such things at any point in time?

What makes you believe God would not be upset of your judgment of Him?

I think this was the end of a string of responses that started when you asked how I could find God if I was always standing in judgment of him.  I don't think this would be an impediment to finding God because he would invite such judgment and would be willing to explain his actions.

What makes you think an omniscient being who is also omnipresent would create the universe any other way than the way He saw to be the only right way.?

The universe he created has seen mankind suffer for thousands of years and visit pain upon one another and many angels in heaven turn wicked and follow the devil.  If this outcome is what God thought of as perfect, I would consider his standards to be very low.  If it is not his idea of perfection but it is what he wanted, then I would question his motivations.  A God who would create a universe that he knew would be filled with so much suffering must like to see his creation suffer.  That's a very scary God.

We are born with a sense of right and wrong which isn't developed except through teaching and experience.

We have the ability to empathize and cooperate, but I don't think that's the same thing.  If we were born with an innate sense of right and wrong, then teaching a child would only require that we tell them "this is right, this is wrong."  But parents who teach in this manner often have problems, while those who explain why an action is right or wrong --often by reversing a situation so they see it from the other person's point-of-view-- are going to have more success in raising children who become good citizens.

God is bound by who He is and God says He is not a liar, so He can't lie. Lying is an impossibility for God.

That one was easy, though.  God doesn't have to lie since he's a being of unparalleled power.  But it's not impossible for him to do so.  If God lied we would not be able to do anything to him.  God is bound by who he is, but he is boundless, so that's not saying anything.  God cannot be limited, even by himself.  That is the essence of his nature.  As you yourself said:

God is not bound by behavioral and moral laws, He is the law by His very nature, God can't go against himself,

This is my point.  There is no action that God could take that would go against himself.  He isn't the law, he is the law giver.  He is above any law because no law can be enforced against him.

If you understood where I'm coming from then why the above statement?

As I said above, the apologist has to come up with an explanation for why God does some of the cruel and brutal things he does in the Bible.  But in putting him above human standards of good or evil, you end up with a God who can do the worst possible things and still be a perfect and good being.  You are trusting that he won't, but there is no basis for that expectation.

You know it's really nice to be able to have a good conversation here and with you, thank you!

Same here, buddy!  Take care.