Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would say apart from monotheism and the rejection of the notion of a trinity, these are some of the other big differences between Islam and Christianity. In Islam there is no belief in 'original sin' that all humans are guilty of so there is no belief that this can be automatically cancelled because of believing an alleged sacrifice took place centuries ago.

But Islam does have a belief in sin, does it not as in offences, against God some of which also constitutes offence against other people

There is only a belief in accountability for your own actions and any bad deeds or intentions that you are personally responsible for.

IMV Christianity in no ways plays down personal sins or personal accountability or judgment of a persons moral record, it does

And there is no blanket  offer of forgiveness by becoming a Muslim.

Noted.

Original sin? There are different interpretations of this but I think all agree that most or all consider that something which happened in the past contributes to our alienation towards God. Traditionalists and In the new testament refer to it as Adam's sin and how through one man, Adam sin entered the world so Jesus overturned that. The full blown Catholic interpretation and iteration of the doctrine does not come until later. and it produces a seeming genetic inheritance of sinful leaning. Whether taking an islamo judaic view or a christian view a thoughtful person I would have thought must mull the origin of sin or put another way, ask oneself why do I sin and following on from that why do I continue to sin or wanting to sin, in fact let's not beat about the bush ANY thoughtful person should  be asking themselves that.

At the moment on this thread I see three views. Stranger and others with their ''God must've designed us to sin so, not my fault'' Your view which has mankind sinning but designed to follow commandments and recieving a formula to please God and Mine which has 1) mankind given freewill,2) historically(primordially and in Jesus and, if you are catholic, in Mary) able to please God entirely,3) breaking faith in that relationship and somehow spoiling the subsequent human world....and as we can see, the world and subsequently 4) finding it impossible to restore the alienation by human means and 5)needing God's rescue.

What's a spiritual decision? Belief in Jesus as god? Do you believe people can choose their beliefs?

A decision not about one's temporal situation specifically the decision to accept God's way of salvation and it's personal necessity.( I first came across the term as used by either Wesley or Edwardes recounting early methodists evangelical meetings) Do I believe people can choose there beliefs? That would depend on how you are defining belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Transparent evasion.

Evasion of what?

None of this gibbering actually addresses the main points I was making. Namely, not everybody would be a sinner if we had a choice about it.

Unfortunately we cannot test that hypothesis since we now inhabit a world suffused by sin, wrong doing, selfishness and all sorts. Christianity and other Abrahamic religions postulate a time when man was sinless, the time depending on how Biblically literalist you are. Jesus of course is a sinless man and in catholicism, Mary is the immaculate conception.

I guess this is the idea of original sin in which an alternative to your design flaw idea is proposed. Here the idea is that man by actions of his free will rather than his being determined to, sins. That sin has a consequence and that consequence spreads down through history. There is of course a secular version of this.

How it is inherited, We cannot fully answer the question secularly because science doesn't give us a steer on morality accept perhaps to say we have several, but I think many secular humanists might take the line that wrongdoing has a social basis, responsibility runs back through society and back in human history until, bob's your uncle, wrong doing originated in early human history and then we have a secular idea of original sin.

[ekim]

If the focus on self/ego is problematic - that may explain why people focusing on themselves and their identities and needing these identities to be recognised and validated by everyone else is creating conflict.

I suspect that it is part of the survival of the fittest idea which gets reinforced by early life programming.  It's better to be seen as a top dog than an under-dog.  Top dogs can, and probably have to, influence  under-dogs.  Unfortunately, as the population expands so does the number of potential aspiring top dogs and some of them are barking mad.

[Alan Burns]

And that's not to mention the silly and cruel game of hide-and-seek that your god (if it exists) is playing for people to even accept its existence, let alone carrot and stick choice you then have to make if you do accept its existence and message.

God does not play hide and seek.
God has made Himself known to us in the best possible way - by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.
Only by becoming human can God truly show His love for us.  The love depicted by His willingness to suffer and die for our sins.
Jesus came to serve - not to be served.
If God had made Himself known as a figure of power - people may have been frightened into following Him, but the common theme throughout the Christian bible is "do not be afraid".  Jesus wants us to accept Him as Lord and Saviour by their own free will - not by using force or fear.

And all that then leads us to the basic problem with the concept of 'free will' that have been much discussed already.

It is you who see it as a problem.
I see it as the only means to accept God's love and to share this great gift with our fellow human beings.


and leading on to another question from Outrider:

The blood sacrifice, for what it's worth, has already been spilt, such forgiveness for someone else's transgressions has already been given, why is this not heaven?

The offer of salvation is open to all mankind, but it would not be right to force all mankind into the heavenly relationship with God.  Such a relationship should be freely entered into.  All the evidence you need to accept the offer of salvation is there for all to see - but we are free to ignore it or seek reasons to reject it.  If you do not wish to accept Jesus as your Saviour, it would not be right for you to be forced into heaven alongside those who have freely chosen to accept Jesus into their lives.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God does not play hide and seek.

And yet many haven’t been able to find him (just as you’ve not found their many gods), and moreover the justifications you attempt for your assertion that you have found him are routinely hopeless.
 

God has made Himself known to us in the best possible way - by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Why do you think a story about a supposed man/god lacking even the basic evidence necessary for historical validity would be the “best possible way” rather than a different method that doesn’t rest on bad arguments and blind faith? 

Only by becoming human can God truly show His love for us.  The love depicted by His willingness to suffer and die for our sins.

Right off the bat I can think of several much better ways – by not inflicting brain cancer on babies for example.

Jesus came to serve - not to be served.

And speaking of blind faith claims…

If God had made Himself known as a figure of power - people may have been frightened into following Him, but the common theme throughout the Christian bible is "do not be afraid".  Jesus wants us to accept Him as Lord and Saviour by their own free will - not by using force or fear.

Do you not think the thuggish threats of a fire and brimstone afterlife made to people who were credulous enough to believe it would have been frightening enough for that purpose?   

It is you who see it as a problem.

Rightly so, for the reason he keeps explaining to you and you keep avoiding – it’s logically impossible.

I see it as the only means to accept God's love and to share this great gift with our fellow human beings.

If a logical impossibility is the “only means” to do that, perhaps you need to revisit your claim of a “God’s love” in the first place – and try looking up "confirmation bias" while you’re at it. 

and leading on to another question from Outrider:

Quote from: Outrider on June 12, 2023, 11:00:00 AM
The blood sacrifice, for what it's worth, has already been spilt, such forgiveness for someone else's transgressions has already been given, why is this not heaven?

The offer of salvation is open to all mankind, but it would not be right to force all mankind into the heavenly relationship with God.  Such a relationship should be freely entered into.

And yet this supposed “free” offer is freighted with the classic components of a conflict of interest, as has been explained to you already. To decide whether there really is an offer then any evidence for it should be weighed on its merits - not on the basis of the consequences if you do or don't buy it.

This shouldn’t be difficult for you to grasp Alan, it really shouldn’t.   
 

All the evidence you need to accept the offer of salvation is there for all to see - but we are free to ignore it or seek reasons to reject it.

What evidence? You keep being asked to produce it, but you never do. Should we conclude therefore that:

1. You do have evidence, but you want to keep it a secret?;

2. What you call "evidence" is nor such thing?; or 

2. There is no evidence?

If you do not wish to accept Jesus as your Saviour, it would not be right for you to be forced into heaven alongside those who have freely chosen to accept Jesus into their lives.

And a non sequitur to finish:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

You need to establish first that your faith beliefs "heaven" etc are valid before claiming consequences from not just accepting them at face value. 

[Sebastian Toe]

it would not be right for you to be forced into heaven alongside those who have freely chosen to accept Jesus into their lives.

Are there people currently in heaven who had not "freely chosen to accept Jesus" before they died?

[Stranger]

Evasion of what?

See the next sentence: "None of this gibbering actually addresses the main points I was making.".   

Unfortunately we cannot test that hypothesis since we now inhabit a world suffused by sin, wrong doing, selfishness and all sorts.

It's not a hypothesis, it's stating the bleedin' obvious. If you set an exam, and every single person who takes it fails, then it's clearly an inappropriate test. Likewise, if you expect a certain standard of behaviour from people and literally nobody manages to attain it, then it's clearly and inappropriate standard for human nature.

Any omni type creator who made the world with human nature being what it is, and then set a standard that nobody can attain, is either an idiot or cruel and sadistic. Take your pick.

Christianity and other Abrahamic religions postulate a time when man was sinless, the time depending on how Biblically literalist you are. Jesus of course is a sinless man and in catholicism, Mary is the immaculate conception.

I guess this is the idea of original sin in which an alternative to your design flaw idea is proposed. Here the idea is that man by actions of his free will rather than his being determined to, sins. That sin has a consequence and that consequence spreads down through history.

This is no better. It's just a different design flaw. This time the flaw is allowing sin to spread down through history. It's basically unjust. Subsequent generations should not be, effectively, forced to have a sinful nature because of the actions of some ancestors.

We are again back to idiocy or cruelty and sadism.

And again, we run up against the logical impossibility of any relevant notion of 'free will'.

How it is inherited, We cannot fully answer the question secularly because science doesn't give us a steer on morality accept perhaps to say we have several, but I think many secular humanists might take the line that wrongdoing has a social basis, responsibility runs back through society and back in human history until, bob's your uncle, wrong doing originated in early human history and then we have a secular idea of original sin.

Gibberish. Not that it matters. If there is no god, then we can't expect the world and life to be fair and just. If there is, then the way the world works is down to the designer and it has to take the responsibility.

[Stranger]

God does not play hide and seek.

So why is the 'real' god so difficult to distinguish from all the other notions of god(s) and, for that matter, any other superstition?

God has made Himself known to us in the best possible way - by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.

That's not the 'best possible way', it's totally idiotic. We have zero evidence that this ever actually happened.

Only by becoming human can God truly show His love for us.  The love depicted by His willingness to suffer and die for our sins.

Which, as I've been explaining, just makes a cruel, unjust, bizarrely sadomasochistic, evil monster.

Jesus came to serve - not to be served.
If God had made Himself known as a figure of power - people may have been frightened into following Him, but the common theme throughout the Christian bible is "do not be afraid".  Jesus wants us to accept Him as Lord and Saviour by their own free will - not by using force or fear.

So why is it actually a choice between giving up on all idea of rationality, critical thinking, and evidence, or face eternal damnation?

It is you who see it as a problem.
I see it as the only means to accept God's love and to share this great gift with our fellow human beings.

Which is the result of you actually having made the choice to give up on all idea of rationality, critical thinking, and evidence. You are simply burying your head in the sand and refusing to engage with the logic.

All the evidence you need to accept the offer of salvation is there for all to see...

That was a joke, right? If not, why the fuck can't you produce even the first hint of the tiniest morsel of any of it?

[Outrider]

God does not play hide and seek. God has made Himself known to us in the best possible way - by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Without divulging too much personal information I was born approximately 1941 years too late for that to be relevant, and on a different continent.

Only by becoming human can God truly show His love for us.

What?

The love depicted by His willingness to suffer and die for our sins.

Why are sins important? Why is the claim that we've broken some arbitrary rules - in some instance by nothing more than BEING HUMAN - a crime that requires a blood-sacrifice to atone for? Who's been harmed by these actions that such reparations are necessary?

Notwithstanding that, given that the atonement has been done, why am I still being told that I need to worry about the prospect of not being accepted into the afterlife (or, at least, the afterlife of choice)?

If God had made Himself known as a figure of power - people may have been frightened into following Him, but the common theme throughout the Christian bible is "do not be afraid".  Jesus wants us to accept Him as Lord and Saviour by their own free will - not by using force or fear.

Abusive relationships often have their periods of pleasant behaviour, but it doesn't remove the implicit threat hanging in the background, it doesn't stop it being a relationship with an at best questionable power dynamic.

It is you who see it as a problem. I see it as the only means to accept God's love and to share this great gift with our fellow human beings.

You don't threaten people you love with eternal damnation, at least not in any definition of love that I'm happy with.

and leading on to another question from Outrider:The offer of salvation is open to all mankind, but it would not be right to force all mankind into the heavenly relationship with God.  Such a relationship should be freely entered into.

Implicit in giving people choice, though, is that they are sufficiently informed - the world, as is, has a multitude of supernatural claims to choose from, and God does not appear to be offering any strong indication as to which is the correct one, which he purportedly could with no effort at all. If you have that level of a power imbalance and people with that limited of an understanding you don't have an adult relationship, you have a relationship between a parent (or, at least, an adult) and a child; in a parent-child relationship you can be sure that there are times when it's so important that the parent makes the decision for the child, and only fringe delusionals challenge that notion. You can explain, you can apologise sometimes, but you still make the best decision for the child at the time.

All the evidence you need to accept the offer of salvation is there for all to see - but we are free to ignore it or seek reasons to reject it.

Where? Which cult of which sect of which church of which religion has it right? How do we differentiate between equally Biblically supported but fairly strongly divergent claims just within Christianity?

If you do not wish to accept Jesus as your Saviour, it would not be right for you to be forced into heaven alongside those who have freely chosen to accept Jesus into their lives.

If God isn't putting the information out in a fashion that's accessible for a significant portion of the populace, God is choosing not to bring us into the fold. What's that judgement? Why is it that my being created, shaped by my childhood and exposed to the various messages in such a sequence that they aren't convincing pitched as my fault, and sufficient to deny me eternal reward, whilst utter shitbags out there believe but are shitbags and they get in?

You can talk about sin and rules and messages being available, but it's all so arbitrary - why is the system rigged so badly, why do good people suffer and, at the end of their suffering, still get denied? Where is the morality in this system?

How is moral to give humanity critical faculties and then penalise them when they choose to apply those faculties rather than abandon them on poor, or no, evidence?

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But Islam does have a belief in sin, does it not as in offences, against God some of which also constitutes offence against other people

Yes in keeping with the language of the time, "sin" is as good a word to use as any other. in translating from the Arabic  The Quran seems to use different Arabic words to denote sin, which has led to some scholars differentiating between major sins and minor sins. e.g.  shirk (associating partners with Allah) is considered by scholars to be a major sin in a monotheistic religion like Islam. Some sins in the Quran are connected with legal punishments and others aren't, and therefore there are different opinions on whether it will be up to Allah to judge and hold people accountable where there is no prescribed legal punishment. Obviously this whole idea of divine judgement and punishment for human behaviour doesn't always go down too well with many people, especially in Western societies today. But it's not surprising that there are diverse opinions as there is a spectrum of beliefs about how much our legal systems should punish offenders so I guess we're always going to be arguing amongst ourselves on this one - to me punishment by Allah for offences makes as much sense as legal punishments by society for offences. I can see why in certain situations it's deemed to be my 'fault' regardless of my nature / nurture - e.g. where I had some conscious thought and input into my decision.  The belief in Islam seems to be that sin is something people do, not a state of being.

IMV Christianity in no ways plays down personal sins or personal accountability or judgment of a persons moral record

Noted.

Original sin? There are different interpretations of this but I think all agree that most or all consider that something which happened in the past contributes to our alienation towards God. Traditionalists and In the new testament refer to it as Adam's sin and how through one man, Adam sin entered the world so Jesus overturned that. The full blown Catholic interpretation and iteration of the doctrine does not come until later. and it produces a seeming genetic inheritance of sinful leaning. Whether taking an islamo judaic view or a christian view a thoughtful person I would have thought must mull the origin of sin or put another way, ask oneself why do I sin and following on from that why do I continue to sin or wanting to sin, in fact let's not beat about the bush ANY thoughtful person should  be asking themselves that.

The Quran has the story about Adam and Eve but it says Adam and Eve (Hawa in Arabic) repented and were forgiven https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=37

At the moment on this thread I see three views. Stranger and others with their ''God must've designed us to sin so, not my fault'' Your view which has mankind sinning but designed to follow commandments and recieving a formula to please God and Mine which has 1) mankind given freewill,2) historically(primordially and in Jesus and, if you are catholic, in Mary) able to please God entirely,3) breaking faith in that relationship and somehow spoiling the subsequent human world....and as we can see, the world and subsequently 4) finding it impossible to restore the alienation by human means and 5)needing God's rescue.A decision not about one's temporal situation specifically the decision to accept God's way of salvation and it's personal necessity.( I first came across the term as used by either Wesley or Edwardes recounting early methodists evangelical meetings) Do I believe people can choose there beliefs? That would depend on how you are defining belief.

For example the feeling or thought that a person has, where they accept that there is a divine/ supernatural entity even though there is no objective testable evidence they have for it, but based on the interpretations (subjective) of their brain / mind to things they have read or experienced. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a hypothesis, it's stating the bleedin' obvious. If you set an exam, and every single person who takes it fails, then it's clearly an inappropriate test.

Or, you are giving an inappropriate analogy. If it is a test it's like a driving test. The test participant has all the skills to pass and during the course of the test shows every skill competence at driving. Then at some point, for his own reasons, decides to completely abandon the test by exceeding the speed limit, swerving, terrorising pedestrians ''because he can''. He loves this ability, causes mayhem without any seeming  final sanction and raises children in his own ''school of motoring''

Likewise, if you expect a certain standard of behaviour from people

There is nothing wrong in expecting a standard from people what might be foolish is the expectation that they will and not instigating a means of rescue and reprieve if they regret their actions

and literally nobody manages to attain it, then it's clearly and inappropriate standard for human nature.

But even a technicolour stereophonic atheist like yourself requires a standard from people and there are people who fail it incurring your wrath. Do you always meet your own standard? Have you ever failed it and felt remorse?

Any omni type creator who made the world with human nature being what it is, and then set a standard that nobody can attain

Again early man according to christianity shows every competence and skills at attaining the standard.....and that standard is maintaining a relationship with God. That is the passmark but as with driving it is not enough to pass at a moment i.e. it might be fine to pass on the day but if the day after you boy race and break the law you could even find yourself dead.

, is either an idiot or cruel and sadistic. Take your pick.

He would be if had not given taken steps to cater for regret.

This is no better. It's just a different design flaw. This time the flaw is allowing sin to spread down through history. It's basically unjust. Subsequent generations should not be, effectively, forced to have a sinful nature because of the actions of some ancestors.

We are again back to idiocy or cruelty and sadism.

And again, we run up against the logical impossibility of any relevant notion of 'free will'.

Gibberish. Not that it matters. If there is no god, then we can't expect the world and life to be fair and just. If there is, then the way the world works is down to the designer and it has to take the responsibility.

It is only idiocy if there is no reprieve from 'wrong' action and regret for it. God has and you are deliberately ignoring it.
So yes, consider this a rebuttal of your inadequate analogy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes in keeping with the language of the time, "sin" is as good a word to use as any other. in translating from the Arabic  The Quran seems to use different Arabic words to denote sin, which has led to some scholars differentiating between major sins and minor sins. e.g.  shirk (associating partners with Allah) is considered by scholars to be a major sin in a monotheistic religion like Islam

Are you having a sly pop here?

. Some sins in the Quran are connected with legal punishments and others aren't, and therefore there are different opinions on whether it will be up to Allah to judge and hold people accountable where there is no prescribed legal punishment. Obviously this whole idea of divine judgement and punishment for human behaviour doesn't always go down too well with many people, especially in Western societies today. But it's not surprising that there are diverse opinions as there is a spectrum of beliefs about how much our legal systems should punish offenders so I guess we're always going to be arguing amongst ourselves on this one - to me punishment by Allah for offences makes as much sense as legal punishments by society for offences. I can see why in certain situations it's deemed to be my 'fault' regardless of my nature / nurture - e.g. where I had some conscious thought and input into my decision.  The belief in Islam seems to be that sin is something people do, not a state of being.

To which the next question could be 'why do they sin?' Why do they choose it today and not tomorrow?

The Quran has the story about Adam and Eve but it says Adam and Eve (Hawa in Arabic) repented and were forgiven https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=37
For example the feeling or thought that a person has, where they accept that there is a divine/ supernatural entity even though there is no objective testable evidence they have for it, but based on the interpretations (subjective) of their brain / mind to things they have read or experienced.

We may just believe that but committing through a course of action like repentance, shahada etc is another thing imho

[Stranger]

Or, you are giving an inappropriate analogy. If it is a test it's like a driving test. The test participant has all the skills to pass and during the course of the test shows every skill competence at driving. Then at some point, for his own reasons, decides to completely abandon the test by exceeding the speed limit, swerving, terrorising pedestrians ''because he can''. He loves this ability, causes mayhem without any seeming  final sanction and raises children in his own ''school of motoring''

It's actually your analogy that totally misses the point. This is never going to happen simply because nobody who did this would be allowed to drive and trying to teach children how to fail a test would ultimately fail. Some children always reject what their parents say, in fact, I'd go so far as to say that pretty much every child goes on to reject some of what their parents say.

If, on the other hand (to make the analogy more like to idiocy used by your god), we changed the driving test so it required absolute perfection in every single situation, no matter how challenging it might be to even the most competent drivers in the world, so literally everybody failed, we'd have made the test inappropriate.

But even a technicolour stereophonic atheist like yourself requires a standard from people and there are people who fail it incurring your wrath. Do you always meet your own standard? Have you ever failed it and felt remorse?

I don't expect perfection either from myself or anybody else. We are all human. What I don't do is ever require vindictive, sadistic, totally over the top punishment for every single imperfection. Even the most heinous of crimes do not deserve torture and death. Even those responsible for the Holocaust, were not considered to deserve that, and there certainly shouldn't be substitution for serious crimes. It seems that humans have a better sense of justice and proportion that your batshit crazy god.

Again early man according to christianity shows every competence and skills at attaining the standard.....and that standard is maintaining a relationship with God. That is the passmark but as with driving it is not enough to pass at a moment i.e. it might be fine to pass on the day but if the day after you boy race and break the law you could even find yourself dead.

How about you stop the silly evasion and actually deal with the points I actually raised, just for a change?

He would be if had not given taken steps to cater for regret.

Steps that require blind faith, giving up on any rationality, critical thinking, and evidence, as well as then catering to the absurd requirement of an insecure god that requires worship.

No thanks.

It is only idiocy if there is no reprieve from 'wrong' action and regret for it.

No, it's idiocy anyway. This would just be a bodge to fix piss poor design in the first place. And as the 'reprieve' is totally unjust (blood sacrifice, substitution), it's actually yet more idiocy.

God has and you are deliberately ignoring it.

I see zero evidence for your bizarre claims about an incompetent, evil god, and wouldn't do anything to cooperate with its unjust idiocy, even if I did.

So yes, consider this a rebuttal of your inadequate analogy.

Not even close. You've basically ignored everything I've said and just tried desperately to defend the indefensible by making out that it is something different to what it actually is. Your total blindness to the absurdities speak volumes about the nature of religious faith.

[ekim]

God does not play hide and seek.
God has made Himself known to us in the best possible way - by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Just as a matter of interest, when Jesus, whilst on the cross, said 'My God, My God, Why did you forsake me' was that viewed as God talking to himself or perhaps the words of a schizoid Jesus wracked with pain?  What is the doctrinal line on this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Or, you are giving an inappropriate analogy. If it is a test it's like a driving test. The test participant has all the skills to pass and during the course of the test shows every skill competence at driving. Then at some point, for his own reasons, decides to completely abandon the test by exceeding the speed limit, swerving, terrorising pedestrians ''because he can''. He loves this ability, causes mayhem without any seeming  final sanction and raises children in his own ''school of motoring''

Except of course the book the test’s code is written in will often say the equivalent of: “When approaching a primary school accelerate to 90 mph” so the morally good option is to do something different.   

Worse yet, it also turns out that there are multiple versions of the Highway Code on offer, and moreover that any two test examiners will rarely agree on the meaning even of the same one.   

There is nothing wrong in expecting a standard from people what might be foolish is the expectation that they will and not instigating a means of rescue and reprieve if they regret their actions

Except of course the supposed offer of a “rescue and reprieve” is often contingent on exhibiting morally contemptible behaviour too.
 

But even a technicolour stereophonic atheist like yourself requires a standard from people and there are people who fail it incurring your wrath. Do you always meet your own standard? Have you ever failed it and felt remorse?

“Wrath”? Indifference an disappointment surely. Why even I try to limit myself to these responses when I encounter behaviour I think to be morally contemptible – religiously inspired homophobia for example.
 

Again early man according to christianity shows every competence and skills at attaining the standard.....and that standard is maintaining a relationship with God. That is the passmark but as with driving it is not enough to pass at a moment i.e. it might be fine to pass on the day but if the day after you boy race and break the law you could even find yourself dead.

Early man? Who might that have been – surely not the idiocy of the Adam & Eve story right?

He would be if had not given taken steps to cater for regret.

How should a baby with brain cancer “take steps to cater for regret”?

It is only idiocy if there is no reprieve from 'wrong' action and regret for it. God has and you are deliberately ignoring it.

No, it’s idiocy because the whole story is morally unpleasant unqualified superstitious drivel. 

So yes, consider this a rebuttal of your inadequate analogy.

So no, consider your attempt a mindlessly unpleasant blind faith declarations epistemically no more worthy of attention than my claims about the habits of leprechauns.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Are you having a sly pop here?

Haha - Not my intention. I'm actually trying to have a discussion openly and to disagree with your beliefs openly - nothing sly about it . I figure if I come on a forum to discuss religion, it is perfectly reasonable for people to disagree and express their disagreement of my opinions and beliefs and vice versa.  I don't take it personally if they don't believe what I believe. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a discussion. And am very happy to be in this discussion with you even if we both walk away sticking to what we each believe.

So   To which the next question could be 'why do they sin?' Why do they choose it today and not tomorrow?

I would say because our faculties allow us to appreciate good and bad, pleasure and pain and we sometimes do what may be considered morally wrong in the process of seeking pleasure or avoiding pain in the various circumstances and situations we find ourselves in every day.

We may just believe that but committing through a course of action like repentance, shahada etc is another thing imho

Yes I suppose you're right. I wasn't looking to commit to anything but when I found myself in a situation where I was expressly presented with the choice I took the step of committing. It was a unconscious desire that turned into a conscious thought out decision at the time.

[Maeght]

Just as a matter of interest, when Jesus, whilst on the cross, said 'My God, My God, Why did you forsake me' was that viewed as God talking to himself or perhaps the words of a schizoid Jesus wracked with pain?  What is the doctrinal line on this?

I've heard it suggested that it was a reference to Psalm 22 and was meant to be understood by those who heard it as being that. So the meaning was essentially the meaning of the Psalm. I heard it suggested that it was common practice at that time to refer to a Psalm by it's first line.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's actually your analogy that totally misses the point. This is never going to happen simply because nobody who did this would be allowed to drive and trying to teach children how to fail a test would ultimately fail.

You maybe stretching the metaphor here. As far as I know the law can not prevent anyone having offspring or take away freewill

Some children always reject what their parents say, in fact, I'd go so far as to say that pretty much every child goes on to reject some of what their parents say.

So you would except that there are common traits in all humans. What many theories of Original sin say is that historic sin does ripple through history and  secular theories of the origin of wrong doing so follow that pattern since wrong doing is a product, in many, of society.

If, on the other hand (to make the analogy more like to idiocy used by your god), we changed the driving test so it required absolute perfection in every single situation, no matter how challenging it might be to even the most competent drivers in the world, so literally everybody failed, we'd have made the test inappropriate.

But you are ignoring my argument, Humans had the competency and passed the test(a relationship with God) and then, using free will, turned against God... and in doing so became addicted to sin spreading it down through history

I don't expect perfection either from myself or anybody else. We are all human. What I don't do is ever require vindictive, sadistic, totally over the top punishment for every single imperfection. Even the most heinous of crimes do not deserve torture and death. Even those responsible for the Holocaust, were not considered to deserve that, and there certainly shouldn't be substitution for serious crimes. It seems that humans have a better sense of justice and proportion that your batshit crazy god.

You are conflating imperfection with sin. Again separation from God which is the goal of a sinner anyway IS the punishment. And the consequences of sin are the lot of the sinner who has finally turned away.

How about you stop the silly evasion and actually deal with the points I actually raised, just for a change?

Steps that require blind faith, giving up on any rationality, critical thinking, and evidence, as well as then catering to the absurd requirement of an insecure god that requires worship.

No thanks.

No, it's idiocy anyway. This would just be a bodge to fix piss poor design in the first place. And as the 'reprieve' is totally unjust (blood sacrifice, substitution), it's actually yet more idiocy.

I see zero evidence for your bizarre claims about an incompetent, evil god, and wouldn't do anything to cooperate with its unjust idiocy, even if I did.

Not even close. You've basically ignored everything I've said and just tried desperately to defend the indefensible by making out that it is something different to what it actually is. Your total blindness to the absurdities speak volumes about the nature of religious faith.

Thinking you can reject God and yet think you should still have all the benefits of not having rejected God, namely having God is extreme Cakeism and that is irrational.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except of course the book the test’s code is written in will often say the equivalent of: “When approaching a primary school accelerate to 90 mph” so the morally good option is to do something different.

Can you expand on this. What specifically is the motoring analogy referring to? For goodness sake let us judge your metaphors to see whether they are Arrant shit, Hillside.

Worse yet, it also turns out that there are multiple versions of the Highway Code on offer, and moreover that any two test examiners will rarely agree on the meaning even of the same one.

But that rather suggests, particular as it's you Hillside, that each is virtually the same with the names changed. 

Except of course the supposed offer of a “rescue and reprieve” is often contingent on exhibiting morally contemptible behaviour too.

That sounds more like the description of a commandment religion and an actual caricature of commandment religions.I don't see how since the supreme revelation of Christ. Of course if it hadn't been for a free will choice of humanity no rescue and reprieve would be necessary.

“Wrath”? Indifference an disappointment surely. Why even I try to limit myself to these responses when I encounter behaviour I think to be morally contemptible – religiously inspired homophobia for example.

I don't think your repugnance of that makes any difference of peoples repugnance to your turdpolishing.

Early man? Who might that have been – surely not the idiocy of the Adam & Eve story right?

No it's a good metaphor and it discusses issues you have so far lacked the cohones to offer but a vague opinion your belief that ignorance as a type of argument not withstanding.

How should a baby with brain cancer “take steps to cater for regret”?

I was speaking of God taking steps. Once again with gusto, Jesus has reversed ''Adam's sin'' or if you prefer historic, future blighting sin. 

[Maeght]

Thinking you can reject God and yet think you should still have all the benefits of not having rejected God, namely having God is extreme.

What do you mean there?

[Alan Burns]

Which is the result of you actually having made the choice to give up on all idea of rationality, critical thinking, and evidence. You are simply burying your head in the sand and refusing to engage with the logic.

made a choice?
choosing to give up?
contemplating what is rational?
engaging in critical thinking?
burying one's head in the sand?
refusing to engage?

Are not all these mental activities logically impossible without the conscious freedom to drive your own thought processes?
Or do you still cling on to the flawed logic which renders every event in our conscious awareness to be just unavoidable reactions to past events?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And yet many haven’t been able to find him (just as you’ve not found their many gods), and moreover the justifications you attempt for your assertion that you have found him are routinely hopeless.
 
Why do you think a story about a supposed man/god lacking even the basic evidence necessary for historical validity would be the “best possible way” rather than a different method that doesn’t rest on bad arguments and blind faith? 

Right off the bat I can think of several much better ways – by not inflicting brain cancer on babies for example.

And speaking of blind faith claims…

Do you not think the thuggish threats of a fire and brimstone afterlife made to people who were credulous enough to believe it would have been frightening enough for that purpose?   

Rightly so, for the reason he keeps explaining to you and you keep avoiding – it’s logically impossible.

If a logical impossibility is the “only means” to do that, perhaps you need to revisit your claim of a “God’s love” in the first place – and try looking up "confirmation bias" while you’re at it. 

And yet this supposed “free” offer is freighted with the classic components of a conflict of interest, as has been explained to you already. To decide whether there really is an offer then any evidence for it should be weighed on its merits - not on the basis of the consequences if you do or don't buy it.

This shouldn’t be difficult for you to grasp Alan, it really shouldn’t.   
 
What evidence? You keep being asked to produce it, but you never do. Should we conclude therefore that:

1. You do have evidence, but you want to keep it a secret?;

2. What you call "evidence" is nor such thing?; or 

2. There is no evidence?

And a non sequitur to finish:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

You need to establish first that your faith beliefs "heaven" etc are valid before claiming consequences from not just accepting them at face value.

Sadly, it would appear that you are not quite ready to enter into a relationship with God.
However - miracles can happen 

[Maeght]

Sadly, it would appear that you are not quite ready to enter into a relationship with God.
However - miracles can happen 

Not quite!!! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean there?

Do you reject God but find being denied the benefits of heaven unjust?
The benefit of heaven is God himself and the benefits of God himself.

[Gordon]

Sadly, it would appear that you are not quite ready to enter into a relationship with God.
However - miracles can happen 

I could do with one, given my responsibilities for two primary age children, but the doctors tell me I still have cancer and that I'm not certain to be around in 3 years when the older one leaves primary school, and that it is unlikely I'll be around when the younger one leaves in 5 years time. Unfortunately 'God'll fix it' doesn't present as being a rational option.

I'm sure you can appreciate that someone in my position could feel perplexed at assurances about possible 'miracles', but then surely this 'omni-God' would have known before I did about these unexpected responsibilities I acquired, coincidentally at more of less the same time I was told I had incurable/terminal cancer, and made sure that I stayed healthy for the sake of the kids.

For someone in my position 'miracle' notions are both infantile and offensive - and not deserving of a smiley!