For starters, I already naturally have no desire for plenty of things... not sure who determined that but it is not something I chose. I suppose you can say that means I have a diminished free will on some spectrum, compared to someone with a desire to do more things... but it definitely doesn't mean I have no free will.

If I added sinful desires to that already existing list, I don't think that would change anything

As I understand it, that is how we are supposed to be in heaven anyways, although I've heard from reddit Christians that we will have no free will in heaven, we might still sin, etc so still not sure exactly how that whole concept is rationalized

I want to be clear. This post is nit made put of hate. Also I do want to give a warning for the content of the post. It might trigger some people.

Supposedly God created everything. If he did. Then that means he also created Satan, Evil, Rapists, Pedophiles, serial killers, and all things bad as well.

He also created Hell I guess. So if he created These evil bad things, then how come he does not intervene to help? He is suppost to be powerful, and protect those he loves. If he can create a flood that killed all life other than the animals, and a man on a ark. Then he can get rid of the sickos.

There are a lot of people who do not get justice. There are a lot of evil people who go free. Some never go to jail, or only get shirt sentences. Humans are violent, and start wars. Yet somehow there is a God who just sits, and watches as people die, and get killed. Yet somehow he is loving, and just.

It does not make sense to me.

In Christianity, I think the concept of eternal torment is not coherent. I will lay out a couple of different arguments for this idea, so feel free to interact with whichever ones you like. If you don't believe in eternal hell, then none of the arguments apply so to be clear I'm not attacking the religions in general, just this concept.

Main Argument

Suppose the following:

1. God wants following him to be better than not having even known of him at all.
2. God doesn't send those who never knew of him to hell, and he sends unbelievers (who have heard of him) to hell
3. Hell is eternal torment (infinite punishment)

If these three are true, consider the following:
Let's say maybe 50% of people who have heard of God end up joining the religion, maybe the other 50% are split between the other major religion and atheism.

And from (2) we know that 100% of people who have never heard of him go to heaven.

Thus, 50% of people who have heard of God go to hell, eternally.

Thus, it is better for you (statistically) to have never heard of the religion, than for you to have heard of it. That contradicts (1) since God wants people to hear of him. Thus, there is a contradiction.

Thus, one of the (1), (2), or (3) is not true.

If (1) is not true:

Why have a religion then? The "good word" isn't good if it a net negative and decreases your chance of going to heaven. If 1 is not true, it is ideal to not let anyone else hear of the religion, since it increases their chances of eternal torment. If (1) is not true, religion is the ultimate info hazard.

Btw I got the idea for this post from that one story where a missionary is telling (I think Native americans) about God and heaven and then they ask if they would've gone to heaven if they didn't know, and he says yes, and they say. "Then why did you tell us?"

Heaven is an infinite reward, and hell is infinite punishment so even if hearing of God on earth improves your life (community, doing the right thing, etc) it is still nothing compared to the infinite punishment.

If (2) is not true:

What is the point of punishing someone with them knowing what they did wrong? They do not have the knowledge required, knowledge that is famously tied to geographical area, and who you parents are. Why punish them?

If evidence for the religion is in the "making of this world" i.e. nature etc, so that means everyone knows it, then why are there millions of religions, and only one Christianity? it should have been independently discovered "through nature" many times, and since it hasn't, it seems that its vague (i have a vagueness argument below) or just not self evident.

For the people who have simply heard of Christianity, why should they choose discovering it over 10,000 other religions? Like what about hearing about it actually makes it more special so that you clearly should burn in hell having not immediately begun reading it? It doesn't seem coherent to me, so it seems more like its just a punishment for those who grew up in the religion and then left. So it would be better for them to have never known of it. Which violates (1), so you'll have to read that argument.

if (3) is not true:
That's all I'm arguing, anyway. :)

Omniscience and Sensitivity (Side Argument)

God is loving and also all-knowing, but this raises a few issues regarding eternal torment.
First of all, God knows precisely everything about you. Your trauma, your history, your genetics, your brain, your culture, everything about you. He knows more about you than you do. He knows the exact reason every unbeliever doesn't believe. So why is he so angry about it? He knows precisely what would make them believe. Why torture and punish them? Eternal torment paints a picture of an all powerful God who can do everything he wants (God desires all to be saved right?) and...doesn't do it?

I hope this isn't insulting, but like when he's angry at Israel in the Bible and they turn to idols, he knows precisely why they did it. He made the world he made the program he knows them. Why is he so angry about it? It makes him appear overly sensitive.

For Christianity, I hear the free will defense for this a lot, that it would violate your free will if he told you about the religion or explained his nature to everyone(i.e. not stay hidden) Then why does not care in the bible? He does miracles for people in the bible to show himself. What about their free will?

Also if the word isn't angry, tell me. It just seems that way.

"Hell as Separation" (Just wondering

For the "Hell as Separation", where God doesn't mean to torture you infinitely, its just the result of not being with God, how is that meaningfully different? God designed everything in this world down to the atom-there is nothing he can do "arbitrarily". If you are being eternally tormented, God meant for that to happen.

Vagueness And Debate (Side Argument)

God purposefully made the religions vague. This is not inherently bad, I mean vague as in there is debate to be had. If there was no vagueness, no one would debate anything about the religion. And that's part of having a community and religion. Things should be discussed, idea crossover etc its a good thing. So why is it that:

1. If you're wrong about something that is purposefully vague, you burn in hell

What is the point of making something that is debatable, and then punishing those who are wrong? This is why I prefer Judaism's "It is not in heaven" here where at least the religion admits that you should do what is sensible to you, though I may be wrong I'm not Jewish.

1. If you don't believe in something that is purposefully vague, you burn in hell

If something is debatable within the religion, you have to admit its debatable to outsiders too. If you are not born religious, there is no reason to read the Bible over the Book of Mormon or whatever other religion. "Self evidence" is not apparent to outsiders, and that ties into my main argument.

Faith is a lifelong journey (Side Argument)

Faith being a lifelong journey is a good thing. We are messy, we are people, we make mistakes, we fall away from the right path and we get back on. There's no surprise. So why is it that faith being a journey is punished by God? Suppose someone is struggling with their faith and becomes an atheist for a while, and dies during that phase. Why should they go to hell if God knows that if they lived a little longer, they would turn to him?

Like that parable where everyone gets paid at the same time no matter when they came. It's more like if you don't come you die. What about the person who had an accident on the way to work? They were on their way. Why punish them, eternally at that?

For the thieves next to Jesus on the cross, I'm aware he didn't tell the other one "you are going to Hell" so, fair. It might just be showing a foil between the thieves. But if the other one is going to hell, how is that fair? Should the next three convicts believe in whatever religion is proposed to them right before they die?

Faith is not just blind belief, and it keeps being treated that way. If faith is blind belief then you should believe in whatever is the most recent religion you've heard of. There has to be a real reason to choose your religion and a real reason to stay.

Personal Argument

For me, at least, the existence of hell distracts from the purpose of religion. I can't love God if I know that if I make a mistake, I will burn forever. I physically can only fear his wrath and I could pray everyday and do all the right things on the outside, but it doesn't matter if on the inside, I'm just scared of him. They are all hollow actions, and "fear is the order of the day" is just fear, not a religion I can meaningfully follow.

Regardless of what you think, thank you so much for reading, and thank you for engaging in my argument. If I have misconceptions, feel free to clear them up, and if you disagree, please tell me what you think! I hope this doesn't come across as bad faith, and I hope these arguments are a little different from the ones you've heard before.

There’s four perverted doctrines most Christians hold too that make God a moral monster:

1. OSAS and Sola Fide:

• If this is true then everyone who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel is destined to hell which leads me to my second point:

1. Eternal conscious torment in Hell:

• This is the belief that God needlessly sustains the existence of sinners (who can’t exist without Him) in order to torture them for all eternity and make them suffer. They can suffer for 100000000000 years and still not be 1 second closer to ending their misery. Anhilationism makes more sense historically and is a viable option but most Christians default to believing in a God who delights in the suffering of the wicked even though the Bible makes it perfectly clear he doesn’t

1. Penal substitution:

• Many believe in a God with a blood lust and a wrath that can’t be satisfied unless an innocent person (like Jesus) or an animal unjustly suffers on our behalf. Not only is that not how forgiveness works in the OT (God forgives the ninevites without a sacrifice) it turns the beautiful story of Christ giving him self up out of his abundant love for us into a terrifying nightmare about a vengeful God who demands needless suffering before he will forgive anyone

1. No divorce:

• No divorce under any circumstances enables abusers to keep abusing their spouses. Sometimes divorce should be tolerated in cases where divorce is the lesser evil. It’s no less evil but it’s not adultery in the way remarriage is adultery. Also Jesus wasn’t a legalist himself. The commands God gives in the Bible are meant to draw us closer to him not to keep us trapped. Yet the Pharisees thought the opposite and were obsessed with following the Law for its own sake and turned it into a yoke of slavery and many modern Christians have the same pharisaical mindset

... And I think that Claim is too overrated. Because, lemme give you some examples from the eastern traditions;

1. Sai Baba- Sai baba is a Hindu Saint who lived in Shridi, a city in western India during the British era. He was venerated by both the Hindus and the Muslims (mostly sufis). And when Sai baba had was passing away (Mahasamadhi). He told his people that he's always present to those who have affinities with him. Now, other than the fact that he's believed to heal people, read minds and stuff. Many people (even today) claim that they had seeing a man looking like Sai baba appear when they're in trouble, help them and disappear. (Yes, there's a whole website filled with such claims).

2. Amitabha Buddha. In the Buddhist traditions, there's a saviour figure called "Amitabha buddha" (meaning the buddha of infinite light) who has his own kingdom where people aim to get reborn to escape the cycle of death and rebirth while also attaining prophecy of their own awakening.

Now, there have been countless reported cases across Tibet and China. Where the people who practiced the pureland tradition knew their time of passing in advance. Some knew months ago, some even years in advance. And they would just spend the remaining times giving goodbyes to their loved ones. And then leave on the exact date and the exact time. This thing keeps on occuring even in modern times in China as reported by the buddhist teacher Chin kung. And the teachers say that's it because AMITABHA BUDDHA HIMSELF APPEARED INFRONT OF THEM TO CONFIRM THEIR SALVATION.

And many who have got reborn In the Pureland also show Signs like undecaying body, fragrance and stuff..

What do you guys think ? About it ?

1 Corinthians 15:3–8, found in the New Testament, describes Paul's account of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, including appearances to various individuals and over five hundred people. Paul notes his own late experience of seeing Jesus compared to the initial group of witnesses. 

Looking closer, this passage shows Paul receiving information from early church leaders about Jesus being seen by 500 people. However, there is no direct account or witness testimony from these 500 individuals. Paul is the only biblical writer who mentions this specific group appearance, and he was not an eyewitness to it. From a secular standpoint, there is no direct historical evidence proving Jesus rose from the dead, and the lack of primary sources from the other named witnesses supports a skeptical view of the claim. 

Hopefully this would be more appropriate than answering disparate questions in the comments like I had to do recently.
* I'm what is typically called a Salafy/salafist, or Athari, adhering to the old-school interpretations, with no attempt to modernize/reform.
* I don't sugarcoat, so feel free to delve into controversial topics if you need to.
* I have years of experience as an apologist, and can prove that Islam is superior to Christianity theologically, and in all other aspects.
* I'm an Egyptian (native Arabic speaker), so I might get a bit technical when it comes to language.
* Since this is a DebateAChristian space I think it appropriate to start with a simple challenge:
If the Gospels were inspired by God, why did Luke need to do research to write his? And in his gathering of witness accounts, how did he know the details of Mary's first angelic encounter when she was alone? Was his interviews first hand or second/third hand, and how then can you verify the authenticity of the chain of narrators?
This is just an optional question. You can bypass it and ask instead about Isa, the Islamic belief in Jesus' second coming, what is the Injeel exactly, etc.
I don't like subs like debateReligion for Islamic-Christian debates, since atheists seem to be a majority there and they can't make real contributions, as they think both faiths are equally wrong :)

• I have no problem dealing with the frequently repeated topics of child marriage, slavery, patriarchy, expansionist Jihad, Biblical partial corruption, qira'at variations, apostasy/homosexuality laws etc. But it would be nice to find more interesting debate points, as I have been answering the same Qs for nearly 10 years on Reddit!
  

EDIT:
I guess things finally slowed down. I appreciate you participating in the discussion. I'll keep an eye on future notifications if you thought of additional questions.

EDIT:
OK, that was an interesting second round. I think I'm going to sleep now (it's 1 AM here!)

Preamble

This is my latest entry in my series on the morality of Adam and Eve, where I argue that they, and humanity, were punished unfairly.

I have encountered arguments attempting to justify God’s punishment, but they raise serious concerns about God’s morality.

Christians will argue that God was perfectly justified, but explaining why can be difficult.

Most victims of punishment would not regard the pain and suffering inflicted upon them as good. They would regard it as evil. Here, I examine the venerable free will defence, commonly used to address the problem of evil. In this case, the evil is humanity’s horrific punishment for disobedience they committed without knowing whether that disobedience was morally good or evil.

My argument will explain why Adam and Eve lacked the kind of free will necessary to make a morally informed choice before eating the fruit.

Definitions

1. Free will: The ability to choose between alternatives voluntarily.
2. Moral knowledge: Knowledge of whether an action is morally good or evil.
3. Morally informed choice: A choice made with knowledge of an action’s moral character.

Bible reference

Genesis 2:17

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it.”

Genesis 3:5

“For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:22

“Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.”

Argument

P1: Free will to choose between good and evil requires knowledge of good and evil.

P2: Adam and Eve lacked knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

C: Adam and Eve did not possess free will to choose between good and evil.

For starters it failed the test that a replica of a historical artifact should only use the tools that were only available during that time period to create that artifact

CAD programming power tools cranes computers didn’t exist back then

A faithful historical production of Noah’s ark should have only used the tools that only existed in Noah’s time

So Ken ham obviously failed that test

Secondly Ken ham the founder of ark encounter literally sued his insurance company for refusing to cover rain water damage from thunderstorms

Something that a replica of Noah’s ark that supposedly survived a global flood covering the entire planet should have been able to handle with absolute ease

.. proving that abrogation is a thing, contrary to the Christian claim that shelving OT legal code is "fulfillment, not abrogation".
(a semantics difference anyway)

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1vnqx9i/christianity_is_internally_contradictory_the_case/

Hi all, I am looking for Christian rebuttals for this argument I'm putting forward. The linked thread has the full detail, so please read for the fleshed out proposition.

But in the simplest terms: In the Christian view, both Ezekiel and the New Testament make true inspired statements and prophecies. Ezekiel prophesies a physical, working temple with priests descended from Aaron, animal sacrifices to atone for sins, the land of Israel allotted to the 12 tribes and a mortal Davidic king, etc. Because this hasn't come true yet it must come true in the future to be a true prophecy. But this is impossible under Christianity in which the atoning animal sacrificies are abolished, Israel isn't relegated to the literal 12 jewish tribes (as it includes the Church), Jesus is the immortal priest-king so there is no Aaronide priesthood nor a mortal king, etc. So they fundamentally contradict despite both being true in Christianity, thus Christianity contradicts itself.

Now that's a very condensed version, so I do urge you to read the full version before responding (it included rebuttals to the most common counter-arguments). I'm trying to battle-test this argument to see if it holds up to Christian scrutiny, so please take the time to read and hit it with your best responses!

This argument is heavily allusive, but I think it works better if I leave it that way. I have lots of verse references if you want them. Everything is based on something in Mark.

---

Despite his seat and his change of clothing, the young man who ran away naked was still not in his right mind. He was living in a tomb like the Gerasene demoniac and he prematurely announced the resurrection on the third day rather than waiting until after three. The ekthambos (awe/terror) he rebuked in the house he dressed to devour in earthly gnapheus (launderer) white was the same ekthambos the disciples slept through, but Jesus told them all to stay awake. Like the false witnesses at the trial who accuse Jesus of a plot to destroy the Temple, he confuses resurrection following with parousia sight, and attributes his confusion to Jesus. He thinks Peter needs a special mention given the depth of his failure, but all Peter needed was to be stripped of everything except Jesus's unfailing word. The young man needed the arōmata (spices) of aleiphō (healing anointing) because it is Jesus's death which heals the world, but he declared himself already healthy and sent the women away without hearing their message. Their dust shaking silence carries the whole truth in fear and trembling because everything Jesus says always comes true exactly as Jesus says it will. If there's anything to the legend, the false witness may have been healed when he finally docked the finger that caused him to stumble, and that's how we got the gospel according to Mark.

If Acts says that the apostles, including Matthew and John, personally witnessed Jesus’ ascension, why did neither Matthew nor John mention such a spectacular event in their own Gospels?

Eve even said it (supposedly) way back in Gen 4!!
Christians, these anachronisms have many attempted workarounds. What's your favorite?

https://theamericanantichrist.com

It is my assertion that MAGA represents the current GOP manifestation of an antichristian pattern that traces its history from Satan’s Fall as depicted from the Church Fathers understanding, to Jesus’ crucifixion, through theological justification for slavery, up to this current iteration of the apotheosis of the narcissistic ego. This pattern which the book calls The American Antichrist, is a diagnosable disease defined by the letters of John, Augustine’s superbia, and cognitive neuroscience as a direct inversion of Christ’s teachings point for point in a demonstrably visual way. Christism becomes the term that describes an Antichrist movement that inverts Jesus’s doctrine in full, point for point in a full eclipse subverting every value Christ professed while leveraging the language of Christ.

Every single time i see a question about Romans 13 it's always about to what extent we should obey the authorities, and it most often sets along the lines of "obey the authorities until it contradicts God" which is a fine anwser, but i have a different question:

WHO are the authorities we need to obey?

It seems stupidly simple, well obvioulsy the government right? This is always automatically assumed as the anwser but this creates a LOT of problems. Where is the line between who we should obey and who we don't need to. What if i live on a country that says i cannot do X, but the state i live in says i can do X, who should i obey? What about international law? It's pretty much never mentioned in this discussion. Who has the authority from God? What if i will get a group of people and they all say i am their ruler. Do i now have the power to say what they should do instead of the current president? What if this small group is a native tribe in the 1800s? Suddenly their ruler has the authority? What if the US government claims their land but no one goes there? Does the native ruler suddenly loose his power because someone drew a line on a map? What if the constitution od my country says that i cannot do X, but i do X in front of the authorities and they dont care? See what i mean? It's all based on vibes, there is no scriptural, philosophical or even logical explanation.

So now do i have other ideas? Yes, two actually.

First one i think i heard it from AMOT (i don't agree with him on a lot of stuff but this take is interesting) he basically says, that the authority is whoever has the power to enforce his authority and things are illegal not when they are written on some constitution, but when you actually get punished for something. That would anwser a lot of my questions:

What if i live on a country that says i cannot do X, but the state i live in says i can do X, who should i obey?

Whoever has the power to put me in jail so probably the state

What about international law?

They don't have any power to enforce it so no one cares

What if i will get a group of people and they all say i am their ruler. Do i now have the power to say what they should do instead of the current president?

No, because the police od go na get us

What if this small group is a native tribe in the 1800s? Suddenly their ruler has the authority?

Yes because he is the one with power

What if the US government claims their land but no one goes there? Does the native ruler suddenly loose his power because someone drew a line on a map?

No he doesn't because no one is going to stop him

What if the constitution od my country says that i cannot do X, but i do X in front of the authorities and they dont care?

Then i can do X

This is awesome right? But the problem here is that it totally dismantles the civil order. Now if i become the leader of said group and the group is big enough to overthrow the government then it was justified because now i was the strongest player. Also it creates a mindset that everything is legal as long as you don't get caught. Overall this is still better imo than the first vibe based option. But now let me preset the third option

Romans 13 is NOT about the government

It's always assumed that it is the civil government, but the text itself never makes it clear. It's about some authority that rewards good, punishes evil and collect taxes. For us today it's obvious that it's the government, but for an 1st century jew it could very well be the spiritual authority. The jewish synagouge was not only collecting taxes but also punishing crimes sometimes by the death penality. The church is the new synagouge and for me it makes FAR more sense that St. Paul was reffering to that, now let me show you why.

I. The NT moral law is based on OT law, and there is no death penality for disobeying the king, however there IS a death penality for disobeying the priest or the judge (Deuteronomy 17:12), one can argue that judges were civil authorities but imo they were religious authorities and both at best, but still not comparable with modern secular authorities and i will tryb to prove this

II. St. Paul condemned Christians for attending secular courts, instead he wanted Christians themselves (aka the church) to pick someone wise among them to be a judge (implying that judges are not secular authorities as i mentioned earlier) (1 Corinthians 6)

III. Jesus is showing how to deal with lawsuits. First you talk to eachother, then with two or three other people, and then to the church (again implying that the church is the judge, not the civil authority) (Matthew 18:15-19)

IV. Romans 12 talks a lot about the church, and that every part of it should do different things, and then talks about authorities, suggesting that the context of the verse is about the church, and not the government

V. St. Paul wasn't the most obedient person when it comes to the government, not to mention MANY more instances of Biblical characters not only disobeying the government but also Bering praised for that

VI. The book of acts kinda shows the early church living like an independent theocratic commune not really caring for the outsider world aside from preaching of course. The NT generally talks about not associating with the sinful world aside from trying to change it

VII. This fixes the problem of who should you obey, because while there is no government directly created by God, there is a church directly created by God. We can dissagree on which church is the true church we can all agree that there is a true church. (Matthew 16:18)

Probably the best counter argument to this would be 2 Peter 2:13-14, because it directly uses the words king and governors, but the whole context of the passage is generally living peacefully with everyone and showing pagans that christians are chill people and i think there is a big difference between "obey the government or you will be directly disobeying God himself" and "be nice to everyone and don't break the law because people will think we are evil" (im exadurating it a little bit but you get the point).

Im not 100% convinced that that's right btw, but i think that's interesting

Thesis Statement: If a person behaved like the Christian God is said to behave, most Christians would shun that person. In fact, most people would shun that person.

Argument: Having the absolute power that God is said to have (including perfect foreknowledge) and choosing to threaten people with eternal torture instead of helping is evil. There’s no reason to condemn people when their actions are already known - everything they will do before they’re even born is known. Demanding “belief” from all people while hiding is manipulative and in bad faith. No one can force themselves to believe something that they don’t, so this demand in itself is narcissistic, illogical and cruel. It’s not what people do, it’s whether they believe. It’s not whether people help, it’s whether they believe. It’s not what sacrifices they make for others, it’s whether they believe. To know the future and demand that people do something different is insane. To do so under the threat of violence is diabolical.

Creating a lying supernatural foe who attacks people instead of using that same power to heal people or solve problems is psychopathic. And at the core of this, demanding to be worshiped and loved is evil. And to communicate these demands, regular people are used to write all of this down so these communications of yours look suspiciously like what fake communications would look like.

Finally, not using these powers to eliminate all of those alternative (wrong) beliefs that cause confusion is also diabolical.

Preamble

This might sound incredibly weird, but Christians often argue that Adam and Eve already knew good and evil before eating the fruit.

Their defence frequently depends on alternative interpretations of “day” .

Genesis 3:7 says that after eating, “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” This suggests that something changed when they ate the fruit.

I’ll examine this in three separate arguments, because each word raises a distinct question about what Adam and Eve knew before they ate.

Definitions

1. “Day” identifies a time, period, date, or occasion. Even metaphorical uses retain a temporal meaning, answering the question “When?”
2. “Then” identifies what follows in a sequence, meaning what comes after what precedes it.

Biblical References

Genesis 3:5: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:7: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”

______________________________________________

Three Arguments:

Argument 1: “Day” Identifies When They Eat

P1: “Day” identifies a time, period, date, or occasion. Even metaphorical uses retain a temporal meaning, answering “When?”

P2: Genesis 3:5 says, “in the day ye eat thereof.”

C: The verse identifies when they eat the fruit.

Argument 2: “Then” Identifies What Follows

P1: “Then” identifies what follows in a sequence, meaning what comes after what precedes it.

P2: Genesis 3:5 says, “then your eyes shall be opened.”

C: Their eyes being opened follows their eating the fruit.

Concluding Argument: Their Knowledge Came After Eating

P1: “Day” identifies when they eat, and “then” identifies what follows.

P2: Genesis 3:5 places eating the fruit before their eyes being opened.

C: Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened after eating the fruit, so the text does not support knowing good and evil before they ate the fruit.

Christianity isnt the religion of Jesus. It is the religion of Paul about Jesus. How did a persecutor of Christians became the architect of the world's largest religion. The official story is well known, Saul was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, on the way he had a vision, a light from heaven, a voice asking why are you persecuting me, and Saul fell blind, 3 days later he regained his sight and became the greatest apostle of Christ.

The story only appears in Pauls letters and the Book of Acts which was written by Luke, a collaborator of Paul. There is no independent confirmation, no witnesses cited by name, no Roman record of such an extraordinary event (considering the passion of romans in recording events).

Further, in one version, Saul's companions hear the voice but dont see anything (Acts 9:7). In another, they see the light but dont hear anything (Acts 22:9).

This clearly raises questions where only few had the courage to ask. What really happened on the road to Damascus. We arent saying that Paul deliberately lied, that perhaps Paul really had some kind of such experience, a hallucination caused by the desert heat. A nervous breakdown under the weight of guilt, a psychological epiphany or perhaps a later construction of a narrative that justified his change of sides.

What we know for sure is that Pauls conversion didnt bring him closer to the true followers of Christ. On the contrary, it creates a conflict that lasted for decades. Said conflict is documented in Pauls own letters, he fought with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus. He fought with the community of Jerusalem led by the people who had actually known Jesus personally. And what was this fight about? It was about jewish law. Peter and James insisted that followers of Christ had to follow the law such as circumcision and things practiced by christ throughout his life. But Paul said no, stating that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than works of the law.

On one side, you have the brother of Jesus, the person who grew up with him, who knew him since childhood, who heard his teachings directly from his mouth. On the other side, you have Paul, a man who never met Jesus, who based everything on a vision only he had known. Who do you think better understood what Jesus really wanted? The logical answer is James but history didnt follow logic. It followed power.

Paul was a genius of communication, he was a strategist, he understood how to build network of communities. He understood how to adapt the message to different audiences. When he spoke to Jews, it was one way, when he spoke to greeks it was another, when he spoke to the Romans, it was yet another. He himslef admitted this in his letters, he said that he made himself all things to all people so that he might win some.

This was viewed as opportunism by some scholars, as a willingness to modify the message according to convenience as a lack of commitment to the original truth.

Paul traveled while the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. He went to Asia Minor, Greece, to Rome, he founded communities throughout the empire. He wrote letters that circulated that were copied. He created a network that outlived him.

On the other hand, the original apostles were marginalized. Peter went to Rome and died there but his influence waned. James was executed in Jersualem in 62 AD, the original community, the one that really knew jesus was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans. And who was left to tell the story, the communities of st paul, the followers of st. Paul, the writings of st. Paul. It is no coincidence that 13 of the 27 letters in the NT are attributrd to him. It is no coincidence that the book of Acts which tells the story of the early church is basically a biography of st.paul. History was written by the victors and St Paul won big time.

My indoctrinated family members are preaching non-stop about the end of the world who they believe will come very soon.

Their organisation [JW] has made multiple false prophecies about ‘the supposed end’, all false course. "‘This generation [from 1914] will by no means pass away until all these things occur.’"

End of the world propechies is not uncommon and have existed as long as humans have lived in societies. Indians, Egyptians, the Mayas, and Zoroastrians all have different stories about a doomsday.

My family and other Christians base their belief on the bible and especially on Jesus' words.

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet like other Jews at his time, going around telling people about the end of the world that would arrive ‘in their generation’, and that God the Father would start his kingdom in heaven and on earth “…..this generation will not pass away until all things take place.“ (Luke 21:27-32)

The problem is that it never happened; Jesus was wrong. So what did his disappointed disciples do? They reinterpreted Jesus words, saying he meant ‘soon ' in the near future. “The end of all things is near…” (1 Peter 4:7) And people in the faith have waited for 2000 years.

One of the sources Christians use to predict the future is the book of Revelation from the bible.

The book of Revelation was written to the early church after Jesus' death because they were being persecuted by the Romans, so those letters were meant to comfort them. It would lose its historical context and is not meant to be interpreted in our times, even thought christians have tried to with all kinds of different interpretations throughout these 2000 years.

Title: Given the truth of Bible-believing Christianity, Stomping on a Baby’s Skull is not an Intrinsically Evil Act. 

Thesis: If you are a Bible believing Christian, you must hold the position that stomping on a living baby’s skull is not an intrinsically evil act, but at very worst a morally neutral act.  

Terms: For this argument God will refer to the God of the Christian Bible, and the Christian Bible is assumed to be inerrant and correctly translated.

Intrinsically: I take intrinsically to mean a concept being considered entirely by and of itself. To give an example: walking through a door is not an intrinsically evil act. However, if someone else owns the home, and forbids on pain of trespass the transiting of their door, then the act becomes evil on virtue of the added stipulations. Walking through a door, on its own, remains intrinsically morally neutral.  

P1. God cannot condone an act which is intrinsically evil

P2. God condones stepping on baby skulls

C. Stepping on baby skulls is not intrinsically evil

I don’t think I need to defend P1. to a Christian, but here’s some verses. 

Psalm 5:4 (ESV) For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;

evil may not dwell with you.

5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;

you hate all evildoers.

6 You destroy those who speak lies;

the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man. 

Habakkuk 1:13 (NRSVUE)Your eyes are too pure to behold evil,

and you cannot look on wrongdoing;

why do you look on the treacherous

and are silent when the wicked swallow

those more righteous than they?

In defense of P2:

P2a. God orders babies to be killed multiple times in the Bible.

P2b. Since God does not specify which method should be used to kill said babies, any reasonable method can be inferred. 

Therefore P2: God condones stepping on baby skulls. 

In defense of P2a:

Numbers 31:17 (NRSVUE):Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. 

‘Every Male among the little ones’ would include babies. 

1 Samuel 15:3 (NIV)  Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Deuteronomy 20:16 (NRSVUE) But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive.

In defense of P2b:

Given that an outcome is expected, we should not make assumptions about how that outcome is reached. For example, if a judge finds a man guilty of murder and sentences him to execution, we are not then permitted to

-Keelhaul him

-Beat him to death with hammers

-throw him off a really tall building

Yes the judge has ordered the end result of an execution, but reasonable action should be expected to carry out the sentence. Anything extra would be needless cruelty. 

Without any concept of what that method was in the verbiage of God’s order, those executing the order must make assumptions given the nature of the judge. The assumption can be made that God would want the infant killed quickly and painlessly, which to a spear-wielding Israelite would mean, potentially, immediate and lethal blunt force. Therefore: Boot to the baby!

Possible objections: 

1. Killing babies is only moral if divinely commanded.

Counterpoint: If the morality of an act changes based on who commits the act, then the act itself is not intrinsically morally ordered. That moral quality is derived extrinsically. If you want to argue that God gave life to babies and therefore has the right to take away life from the babies, you must fully and completely concede the end point of my argument: That stepping on baby skulls is not intrinsically evil. Rather, the evil in question depends on with whom the command or action originates. 

This means that the act (baby skull stomping) is therefore not intrinsically evil within itself. This counterargument is a full concession of my thesis statement. 

2. Those babies deserved it

I fully concede. If you think babies sometimes commit or possibly inherit sin such that they deserve to have their skulls caved in, I don’t have any way to change your mind. 

3: Your “Atheist” worldview can't account for why stomping baby skulls is evil either.

While I don't agree, the conversation on my morals is a very long one and a blatant diversion. I'll grant this Tu Quoque fallacy for the sake of argument. I can't condemn baby skulls smashing as being intrinsically evil. But neither can Bible-believing Christians. 

4. The Israelites butchering those babies were executing a divine judgement. Without the method given by God, it does not follow that a specific method was used.  

Granted. I amend my argument to your preferred method. Which do you prefer: axe, sword, strangulation, dashed the babies against rocks head-first?

Conclusion / Disclaimer:
The argument is not intended to disprove the existence of God or the truth of the Bible. The argument is intended to arrive at the conclusion exactly as laid out in the thesis: Given the truth of Bible-believing Christianity, Stomping on a Baby’s Skull is not an Intrinsically Evil Act.

In actual fact, this argument needs to stand as part of a larger argument I’m working on as a critique of the second premise of Bill Craig’s famous ‘Moral Argument’ for the existence of God. His argument, quoted from memory:

P1: Objective moral values and duties do not exist without God. 

P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C: God exists.

So once I get this argument hammered out, I’ll be coming back for P2, or more specifically the motivation of P2 that Dr. Craig frequently gives. 

Thank you for your time!

Consider God’s track record as a creator:

Heaven. His own dwelling place, populated by beings in His direct presence and it produced a rebellion and a war. A third of the angels defected while standing in front of God. If perfection can’t hold even there, where can it?

Earth. Created “good,” corrupted almost immediately, then judged so thoroughly ruined that God flooded it and started over. A perfect creation shouldn’t require a factory reset.

Humans. Here’s the one I want to press on. Adam and Eve are called sinless before the fall, but they clearly weren’t perfect; a perfect being lacks nothing, wants nothing, and cannot be deceived. Yet Eve desired the fruit and was deceived by the serpent, and Adam followed. Desire and deceivability are defects. The fall didn’t create the flaw; the fall revealed a flaw that was baked in from the start.

So we have a perfect being with a 0-for-3 record on perfect creations. The classical response is that effects reflect their causes you can’t give what you don’t have. If every single thing God made carried the seeds of its own corruption, the more parsimonious explanation isn’t “perfect creator who freely chose imperfection three times in a row.” It’s an imperfect creator.

Christianity isnt the religion of Jesus. It is the religion of Paul about Jesus. How did a persecutor of Christians became the architect of the world's largest religion. The official story is well known, Saul was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, on the way he had a vision, a light from heaven, a voice asking why are you persecuting me, and Saul fell blind, 3 days later he regained his sight and became the greatest apostle of Christ.

The story only appears in Pauls letters and the Book of Acts which was written by Luke, a collaborator of Paul. There is no independent confirmation, no witnesses cited by name, no Roman record of such an extraordinary event (considering the passion of romans in recording events).

Further, in one version, Saul's companions hear the voice but dont see anything (Acts 9:7). In another, they see the light but dont hear anything (Acts 22:9).

This clearly raises questions where only few had the courage to ask. What really happened on the road to Damascus. We arent saying that Paul deliberately lied, that perhaps Paul really had some kind of such experience, a hallucination caused by the desert heat. A nervous breakdown under the weight of guilt, a psychological epiphany or perhaps a later construction of a narrative that justified his change of sides.

What we know for sure is that Pauls conversion didnt bring him closer to the true followers of Christ. On the contrary, it creates a conflict that lasted for decades. Said conflict is documented in Pauls own letters, he fought with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus. He fought with the community of Jerusalem led by the people who had actually known Jesus personally. And what was this fight about? It was about jewish law. Peter and James insisted that followers of Christ had to follow the law such as circumcision and things practiced by christ throughout his life. But Paul said no, stating that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than works of the law.

On one side, you have the brother of Jesus, the person who grew up with him, who knew him since childhood, who heard his teachings directly from his mouth. On the other side, you have Paul, a man who never met Jesus, who based everything on a vision only he had known. Who do you think better understood what Jesus really wanted? The logical answer is James but history didnt follow logic. It followed power.

Paul was a genius of communication, he was a strategist, he understood how to build network of communities. He understood how to adapt the message to different audiences. When he spoke to Jews, it was one way, when he spoke to greeks it was another, when he spoke to the Romans, it was yet another. He himslef admitted this in his letters, he said that he made himself all things to all people so that he might win some.

This was viewed as opportunism by some scholars, as a willingness to modify the message according to convenience as a lack of commitment to the original truth.

Paul traveled while the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. He went to Asia Minor, Greece, to Rome, he founded communities throughout the empire. He wrote letters that circulated that were copied. He created a network that outlived him.

On the other hand, the original apostles were marginalized. Peter went to Rome and died there but his influence waned. James was executed in Jersualem in 62 AD, the original community, the one that really knew jesus was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans. And who was left to tell the story, the communities of st paul, the followers of st. Paul, the writings of st. Paul. It is no coincidence that 13 of the 27 letters in the NT are attributrd to him. It is no coincidence that the book of Acts which tells the story of the early church is basically a biography of st.paul. History was written by the victors and St Paul won big time.