What Christians Won’t Do to Defend God’s Marvelous Plan®

What Christians Won’t Do to Defend God’s Marvelous Plan® September 18, 2018

God can’t defend or even explain his policies, but he has self-appointed people eager to put words in his mouth.

Christian apologist Greg Koukl was given the opportunity to stand up for God since God never bothers, and Koukl didn’t disappoint. He was asked this question (audio @21:05):

If you [a Christian] found yourself on Judgement Day standing next to an unbeliever you cared for and liked and Jesus offered to either annihilate you both or send you to heaven and your friend to hell for eternity, which would you choose and why?

God knows best, I guess

Koukl unsurprisingly chose option two. His justification: “because that’s God’s system” and God knows best.

So we’re supposed to accept an insane interpretation of justice—infinite punishment in hell for finite crimes here on earth—and just assume that God must have good reasons? This does nothing to justify the Christian position and would be satisfying only to Christians (and maybe only some of those).

This question is like God’s demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac—it looked like an obedience test, but it was actually a morality test. The correct response for Abraham was: “No, of course I won’t sacrifice Isaac.” And this wasn’t presumptuous of Abraham. Since Man was supposedly created in God’s image (or the gods’ image), Man’s understanding of morality should be in sync with God’s, and the natural instinct of revulsion against killing one’s own son should be reliable.

Now apply that attitude to this question of annihilation vs. heaven for you and hell for your friend. Any mentally healthy person would be horrified at the idea of anyone, let alone a friend, being tormented forever and would immediately choose the alternative. Besides, this hypothetical assumes that “God’s system” has suddenly become flexible, so that your choosing is allowed, and your God-given sense of morality would be an appropriate response.

Koukl has unwarranted confidence in his interpretation of God’s wishes. Christians can’t explain the logic behind the Trinity, they’re divided over hell (eternal torment vs. “the gates are locked from the inside”), they can’t agree on whether Christianity is at odds with science or not, and so on. Christians have found loads of contradictory interpretations of the Bible to justify various attitudes toward slavery, civil rights, same-sex marriage, abortion, health care, and so on. That Koukl is comfortable with his particular set of responses to the dozens of questions that divide Christians says a lot about him but little about what the Bible says.

(Aside: this clumsy justification reminds me of Koukl’s dancing around the issue of whether women getting abortions should be punished, here.)

Consequences in heaven

Koukl moves on to the question of how this will affect heaven. Will knowing about a friend (or billions of people) writhing in agony “tarnish our enjoyment of heaven”?

Yeah, that’d be a shame if someone else’s anguish rained on his enjoyment of heaven. He explained that when we get heavenly enlightenment, we will understand that “God’s judgments are just.”

Yet again, I’m not sure how humans can be so radically out of sync with God’s “morality” when we were supposedly created in his image. You’re an enlightened being in heaven (presumably greatly elevated from your flawed, limited human shell on earth) and you know about the billions in torment and you’ll be okay with it??

“We [in heaven] will rejoice in the good,” Koukl tells us, but what kind of Bizarro World are we talking about, when Christian belief obliges them to label as “good” a punishment system that makes the 11 million deaths in the Holocaust look like a church picnic? It’s pretty much the most inhumane situation conceivable, and it’s held up as a divine good.

And Christians wonder why atheists are occasionally peeved at Christian dogma.

But plenty of other apologists have no reluctance in celebrating God’s perfect inhumane plan. Here is thirteenth-century theologian Thomas Aquinas doubling down:

That the saints [in heaven] may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly and give more abundant thanks to God for it, a perfect sight of punishment of the damned is granted them.

(More on the history of Christians not tap dancing way from but celebrating the idea of hell here.)

If you’re in hell, it’s your own fault

As usual, we can’t demand that God answer for his barbaric justice. God is a fragile baby, and it would be too harsh to treat him like an adult. Luckily, we have Christian apologists happy to pull the strings on the God marionette and speak for him. Koukl defends God’s system:

On this system, forgiveness is available and [the damned] did not avail themselves of it, and they are justly punished for what they did and I am unjustly . . . forgiven.

See, I told you! If you’re roasting on a spit in hell, too bad, because it’s your own fault.

Let’s reconsider this claim that forgiveness is available, because it’s not available to me. Who can believe the unbelievable? I need evidence, and Christianity has pretty much none. The Christian can demonstrate to us how this is supposed to work by believing in leprechauns. When they show me that believing in the unbelievable is possible, then we can move on to the question of whether it’s a smart thing to do.

And let’s just ignore the claim that Jesus taking on our sin with substitutionary atonement makes any sense (more here).

Is Koukl being selfish?

Koukl anticipates the charge that he’s being selfish, that he’ll make the other person go to hell just so he gets heaven.

It is the consequence of the plan that God has put in place, and it’s an expression of two appropriate things, justice being done to somebody who deserves it and grace being extended based on God’s plan and purpose, both good things.

“Justice”? Ask anyone if hell is the justice they’d impose if they were the boss. Koukl here is judging God’s plan as reasonable and good when it obviously isn’t according to any human interpretation. Hell would make a sadist recoil. If he means that hell only sounds brutally unjust, but we must trust God, then he should (1) admit that it sounds crazy and that he doesn’t understand and (2) justify why that trust in God would be justified.

He’s done nothing to help his Christian audience defend hell. God’s Marvelous Plan® still sounds like Bronze Age insanity.

God never fails, because he never tries.
He’s not even a loser.
He doesn’t show up to the game.
— Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

.

Image via Giovanni, CC license

.

">>>"For this reason, most secular historians, biologists, astrophysicists, etc avoid topics that may validate Christian ..."

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and ..."
"Dude. We are talking people that work at divinity schools here. We are not talking ..."

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and ..."
"H. J. Muller was a Nobel Prize winning geneticist who came up with the concept ..."

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and ..."
"Is this The Running Commentary or Preemptive Quotes? https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

A Distillation of Crazy

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • im-skeptical

    Christian morality is inherently selfish. Whatever they do, it is with the goal of that Beatific Vision in mind. Altruism? They expect their payoff in the end. At least if an atheist is altruistic, it’s not with that payoff in mind.

  • Bob Jase

    “What Christians Won’t Do to Defend God’s Marvelous Plan®”

    Don’t almost 2000 years of slaughtering one another due to quibbles and non-believers for existing demonstrate this well enough?

  • Milo C

    The idea of Hell never sat well with me. As a child, I was told only Roman Catholics were going to heaven. Separately (to avoid trauma and dissonance) I was warned that all souls would be divided into either heaven or hell, although purgatory was a temporary holding area. That meant that good people like Ghandi and regular people who had never heard of Jesus, like billions of indigenous people over thousands of years, were going to suffer eternal Punishment. “Because separation from god was something they chose” does not seem logical to me in most cases. Can you choose after your death, when you are informed of actual truth (hypothetically)? I haven’t gotten a straight answer yet. I think that’s because the implications are too costly to their brand.

    • TinnyWhistler

      I was told that avoiding eternal punishment meant rejecting God: One had to have had the opportunity to learn about Jesus, and then decide to reject him, before one would be sentenced to hell. Teaching was cagey on what exactly counts as an opportunity (Would Native people who committed suicide to avoid being forcibly baptized by Spanish missionaries go to hell when they’d been shown a Very Bad sort of Christianity? What about modern atheists who’d met nothing but hate from Christians) and absolutely no one wants to talk about the moral balance of getting a bunch of nukes and glassing the planet so that no one has the opportunity to reject God and sentence themselves to hell.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        One had to have had the opportunity to learn about Jesus, and then decide to reject him, before one would be sentenced to hell.

        This makes missionaries evil beyond measure.

        • TinnyWhistler

          Ah, but the missionaries have a mandate from Jesus to spread the Gospel. They’re obeying God by doing so. It’s a catch-22.

          Personally, I think the best case scenario is for one particularly pious person to take it upon themselves to save the entire world and nuke us from orbit. Would solve quite a few problems in general.

    • Southern Baptist and Independent Baptist churches I grew up in didn’t shy away from sentence of hell for those who were unfortunate to have grown up with the wrong brand of religion. Additionally, we Christian’s were told that it’s our duty to proselytize the world – and that if we didn’t the blood of the lost was on our hands. The verse about God being apparent in nature making everyone without excuse was brought up a lot too.

      • The problem with God being apparent in nature is that apparentness (wow, spellchecker actually accepts that as a word) is vague enough to be evidence for all sorts of religions. For example to an animist it’s evidence various things in the natural world have spirits.

        • Joe

          Of not only a god was apparent, but the Christian God is supposedly the only logical choice, why aren’t the majority of people Christians? Why did Christianity only spring up a couple of millennia ago?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          The trinity is such an obvious self-evident concept that nobody understands it!

    • eric

      Dante had a quite nice part of the first circle reserved for the ‘noble heathens’ who lived before Jesus and therefore got historically screwed. That’s where he envisioned Plato, Aristotle, etc. going. No torture or anything, pretty much just a regular existence minus whatever wonderfulness there was in heaven.

    • Sam

      When I was little, our Social Studies/CRS teacher told the class that when Jesus died (and before his resurrection) he went back in time and preached the gospel to all the people of the world so no one had that excuse come Judgement Day.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Too bad he didn’t go to the future and preach as well….

      • Some teach that while dead he went to Hell and let people who would accept him there go. The concept of “invincible ignorance” says no one will be damned for not knowing, but that logically entails spreading the Gospel is bad since it puts many at risk.

        • Others say that he battled Satan in Hell, won, and carried carried to Heaven the good souls present there. Very cool, but it has its share of problems. And not small.

        • Yeah, that seems like a variant on the going to Hell story. It raises the question why there even is a Hell, among other things.

        • Just don’t ask. If reason was considered the Luther as the greatest enemy of faith or the Devil’s whore is for anything, as cool as is the idea of Jesus in Sephiroth fashion going there.

          Same as the BS of certain Pentecostal who claims that Buddha and Confucius will bow upon Christ on his return. The superiority complex of those people is insufferable.

        • Yeah, that’s what a lot of people. Some invoke Molinism, saying God knew ahead of time who would reject him, so they were left with no knowledge of salvation. One must ask why he would create them at all then.

          That’s at least better than saying they’ll be burning forever.

        • Nah, one must ask where’s omnibenevolence and all that. Still, as much as we know what’s the by far more likely thing that will happen once we leave behind this mortal coil I’d really like to see Fundagelicals, especially those who support Trump, being thrown to Hell for having mangled Jesus’ message lying, denying science, and being jerks en general while skeptics for having been much more consistent get the prize (and it does not have to be the literalist Heaven)?

        • Yes, the omnibenevolence seems lacking. I don’t wish hell on my worst enemy.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Wow! Time travel before its time.

        • Greg G.

          What do we want?
          Time travel!
          When do we want it?
          “When” is irrelevant!

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          or jesus was a time traveller all along, like in the sci-fi story “behold the man” (wikipedia). only in this story the time traveller died on the cross.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A time travelling Jesus….that’s a bit far fetched is it not?

          Next thing we’ll have people believing that articulated lorries can change themselves into giant robots and start talking…in English no less.

        • Greg G.

          Bumblebee doesn’t speak English. Checkmate, athiest!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Since when was a Camaro an articulated lorry?

          And the Bumlebee I watch speaks English.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HDyMC6BcgI

          Feckin’ doubters everywhere a look.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          not exactly “a time travelling jesus.” karl glogauer, the time traveller in the story, tried to find the historical jesus. he found him but it was a disappointing encounter (wikipedia):

          “Worse, their child Jesus is a profoundly intellectually disabled hunchback who incessantly repeats the only word he knows: Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Karl, however, is so deeply committed to the idea of a real, historical Jesus that, at this point, he himself begins to step into the role, gathering followers, repeating what parables he can recall, and using psychological tricks to simulate miracles.”

          he died on the cross, so he actually never was “a time travelling jesus.”

          i love time travel stories. it’s a nice way to introduce some interesting philosophical questions about free will, the nature of time, and so on. time dilation was one of the reasons why i became interested in special relativity and general relativity, including more speculative things like closed timelike curves and wormholes, of course.

        • Kuno

          Hm, Jesus as a Time Lord… It makes sense. He either had a long regeneration after being crucified or it took him a while to open the tomb from the inside.

          And it would explain the apostels not recognizing him after his “resurrection”.

          I can’t be the first to think of that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I can’t be the first to think of that.

          Nope.

          https://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/11/22/jesus-christ-time-lord/

        • Kuno

          When a Time Lord reaches the end of his lifespan – by age, falling off a
          giant antenna, absorbing massive amounts of radiation, or poor ratings –
          the Time Lord does not die. He regenerates into a “completely new
          person with all the same memories.”

          Nice article, thanks.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I’d like to have time travel now. For example, I’d like to get into a time machine now and go back to the tomb of Jesus and just watch.

        • Greg G.
        • Gary Whittenberger

          I’d never seen that before. It was hilarious. Thanks for the link.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What tomb?

        • Pofarmer

          You think he could Time Travel into a plot device?

    • Gary Whittenberger

      The idea is that you can choose your behaviors and then God can choose your disposition contingent on your behaviors.

      • Milo C

        Well, sure. That’s the general idea. People are punished or rewarded based on their actions, and partly their thoughts and intentions. But that’s not Catholic doctrine. Remember, according to Church leaders, Jesus made them the gatekeepers. This makes your disposition contingent on your beliefs and actions; therefore, it is contingent on what you experienced as an individual. Therefore if you are born into the wrong culture, you have a very strong chance of not going to Heaven. IFAIK, the Church has not stated you don’t need to believe in Jesus (while alive) to be saved.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I was just disputing the idea “Because separation from god was something they chose.” I know that’s not your idea.

          However, if you know about Jesus and you reject Jesus, then you will go to hell, according to standard Christian doctrine.

  • katiehippie

    I’d ask him the opposite. What if he was the one going to hell and the friend going to heaven. Would God’s justice seem correct then? That’s what he is arguing.Who is he to doubt god?

    • Great point. You’d think he’d be honored to fry in hell for eternity to support God’s inscrutable plan.

    • Gary Whittenberger

      Koukl’s hypothetical is not consistent with his own beliefs — God would not give us choices like that.

  • Otto

    I don’t care if it was my worst enemy, I wouldn’t want them to suffer like that. Is it any wonder Christian’s can often be so very callous?

    • Mike Panic

      This is what happens when a religion claims you are blameless.

  • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

    If God’s justice is such a good thing, shouldn’t he demand that BOTH of them be sent to hell to serve the punishment that God thinks they deserve?

    • If Koukl is so certain that he doesn’t deserve heaven, you’d think that taking annihilation would be the honorable way out. How could you enjoy heaven when you knew you really shouldn’t be there?

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        I guess as well as annihilating any empathy they may have for their fellow man, God will annihilate their sense of shame as they go to heaven.

        • Heaven is such a hideous, selfish, hateful place that you must be turned into someone else to endure it.

          Sounds like hell.

        • Syzygy

          We hear about a “mansion in heaven.”
          How many bathrooms does it have?

        • Bob Jase

          Why do spiritual beings need mansions?

          Ja think maybe the whole spiritual beings thing is a modern retcon now that its been shown that biblical cosmology is crap?

        • Greg G.

          Why would spiritual beings need streets paved with gold? Do they need paved streets? Do they need streets?

        • “Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.” — Doc Brown

      • Bob Jase

        Watch for season 4 of The Good Place for the answer.

  • Anthrotheist

    So what he seems to be saying it, “The reason that it doesn’t seem to make sense is because it makes too much sense for us humans to make sense of.”

    Sort of like how really smart people always seem really dumb; or how really nice people always seem to be cruel; or really rich people seem to be poor. Sure.

  • Not even Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others mass-murderers deserve an eternity of suffering. Much less those who have had many reasons not to have chosen to accept Jesus as blah, blah (cue Fundagelical BS) despite being kind people unable to kill even an insect except for self-defense (fucked mosquitoes) and/or who never had heard of Jesus, even with the history mentioned by some of the former descending to Hell to carry away the good souls there, an idea that has problems of its own. Even other faiths have or had more balanced punishments, beginning with everyone going to the same place (early Judaism with Sheol, Sumerians with the Underworld, early Greeks with Hades, etc).

    Obviously some talked and talk quite freely of what is (not) an eternity. Exactly as per the opposite of eternal punishment.

    • Joe

      I’d say as a rule of thumb nobody deserves suffering in an afterlife. Punishment can sometimes work as a correction on people like Stalin or Hitler, but it’s not as if they’re ever going to be in a position to inflict suffering again. It can’t redress what happened either. Isolation would be much more acceptable.

      • eric

        Or just nonexistence. It seems to me that permanent loss of consciousness would be far more merciful than permanent consciousness + torture.

        • Greg G.

          Permanent loss of consciousness would be better then kissing God’s ass continuously for a trillion years. The reward is to do that an infinite number of times.

        • The annihilationist view that some say John (the one of the famous John 3:16) had in mind in that verse. Some others have also torture before that, and the good thing oblivion has is that it cannot be felt:

          http://naturalism.org/philosophy/death/death-nothingness-and-subjectivity

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Some Christians believe in the eternal torment idea and others believe in the annihilation idea. You would think that if God did exist, he would clear up the confusion and disagreement. But no, this hasn’t happened. I guess God doesn’t exist.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          It might not taste or smell very good.

        • Welcome to Celestial Pinball.

      • Or experimenting each one of the deaths they inflicted from the POV of the victim while at the same time being prevented from becoming insane due to the experience.

        Simply put we’re not prepared to experiment eternity.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Yes, like isolation in a prison cell with occasional interactions with the caretakers.

  • trinko

    Hell is easy to explain. God created Hell as an act of love for those who hate Him.

    People like Hitler and Stalin who hate God wouldn’t want to spend Eternity in the closest possible intimacy with Him.

    So God sends them to Hell where the don’t have to be with Him.

    Their suffering in Hell isn’t caused by God. Rather it’s caused by their choice to reject the only thing that can truly make them happy.

    God created us to be truly happy only with Him. Just as God created us to need water to survive on earth.

    Hence if a man on earth decides he hates water and refuses to drink he will suffer. Is he suffering because of the water? Of course not he’s suffering because he has rejected what’s good for him.

    So too a man in Hell suffers because he has made of himself someone who hates what’s necessary for his happiness.

    But why is Hell forever?

    That’s because there is no time in Heaven. We don’t grow or change after we reach Heaven, or Hell. Hence if when we die we hate God we will never change to not hating Him.

    Why is there no change in Heaven? If there were change in Heaven then we couldn’t be perfectly happy since we’d be on a journey to perfection instead of having reached it. Once we’re perfect and perfectly happy why would we change? Now if we sin but we repent, even at the last minute, or if we do bad things but honestly don’t think they were bad, and hence they’re not counted against us since sin is an act of will, but we die imperfect we go to Purgatory where we are refined and made perfect.

    But if we die hating God we’re unlikely to want to change.

    • Otto

      Just because you think the story is true doesn’t mean everyone does…and not believing the story does not equate to rejecting your god, or hating him.

      >>>”Just as God created us to need water to survive on earth.”

      I can prove empirically that water is necessary and real. Now do that with your god.

    • Joe

      People like Hitler and Stalin who hate God wouldn’t want to spend Eternity in the closest possible intimacy with Him.

      So God sends them to Hell where the don’t have to be with Him.

      Their suffering in Hell isn’t caused by God. Rather it’s caused by their choice to reject the only thing that can truly make them happy.

      Is “not being happy” the same as suffering?

      • Gary Whittenberger

        I don’t think it is. Think of a continuum from happy to neutral to suffering. If you were at neutral, you wouldn’t be happy or suffering.

        • Joe

          Of course. I hoped for an answer from this person, but it stands as a rhetorical question.

          Theists prefer not to think of a continuum, as it blurs the lines of an orderly creator-God. They prefer to think in binary: God/Satan, good/evil, Adam (man)/Eve (woman). The continuums found in biloogy, or morality, for example, cause them no end of problems.

    • Hell is easy to explain. God created Hell as an act of love for those who hate Him.

      “Act of love”? Tell that to the rich man in the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus.

      “Hate him”? I don’t hate God just like I don’t hate Quetzalcoatl or Zeus.

      Their suffering in Hell isn’t caused by God. Rather it’s caused by their choice to reject the only thing that can truly make them happy.

      Have you ever wondered why God sent you to defend his ridiculous plan? Why doesn’t he do it himself?

      Of course not he’s suffering because he has rejected what’s good for him.

      I know that water exists. Not so God.

      That’s because there is no time in Heaven. We don’t grow or change after we reach Heaven, or Hell. Hence if when we die we hate God we will never change to not hating Him.

      Again, you don’t hate that which you don’t think exists.

    • Michael Neville

      I don’t hate your god. He’s imaginary and it would be silly to hate a figment of someone else’s imagination.

      We don’t grow or change after we reach Heaven, or Hell.

      That would be horrible. Thank you for explaining your god is a sadistic monster.

    • Lark62

      Disgusting.

      Religion rots all morality and human decency.

    • eric

      God created us to be truly happy only with Him.

      How narcissistic of him.

      If my son could only be truly happy when he was with me, I’d consider that such egregiously bad parenting that I’d probably call a psychologist to see how immediately I could get my son’s problem fixed.

      We don’t grow or change after we reach Heaven

      How horrible.

    • Anri

      But if we die hating God we’re unlikely to want to change.

      Ok, but what about people who love god – just the wrong god?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Or those who don’t believe in any gods and just disregard such superstition as irrelevant and uninteresting?

    • Lark62

      Uh oh. Bad news.

      I just received word from the deity. She hates groveling. She thinks praise is like a really bad first date with some creep telling her he is madly in love with her elbows.

      Nope. The bible is a test. The deity described in it is cruel, capricious, sadistic and murderous. The bible itself is contradictory and absurd.
      Its approval of slavery, rape and genocide is clearly immoral.

      Anybody who believes the bible or who thinks it contains moral guidance or who worships the deity described therein will go straight to hell. No passing go, no collecting $200.

      You failed the test. Looks like you’re screwed. So sorry. Best break out that fire retardant suit.

    • Mike Panic

      Then get your goddamned lousy god over here to tell us that BULLSHlT IN PERSON. Waiting impatiently, impotent little god. Get over here already. asshole!!! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bdf40e3920634d1d182e38743a3622cbba38b7d615e1965eb3960adcbbaaaa4e.jpg

    • Ficino

      I hate shitty ideas that correspond to no reality but people say they do. And take your shitty idea and stuff it.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Now that’s a little too mean for an ethical atheist.

    • Max Doubt

      “Hell is easy to explain.”

      Yep. Fiction. Figments of imaginations. It would be interesting if you could show otherwise, but I’m betting against it.

    • Siltch77

      God loves you so much, that even if you hate him, he will send you to an eternal torture chamber, because he loves you and he respects your space. Ok, got it.

    • Damien Priestly

      Wow, Purgatory is back is style again !!

      So how long is a typical stint in Purgatory for imperfection? Maybe a couple of trillion years, or so?

      • Bob Jase

        And I wonder if when you’re closer to the end can you hear the screams of those in Hell better?

    • 3vil5triker .

      In order to suffer or be happy you need to be able to experience. If you are able to experience, then by definition, you are changing. Your mind is different. Your thoughts and accumulated experiences constantly feed into each other creating a new version of you that is different than it was an instant ago. For entities that can experience degrees of happiness or suffering, in any meaningful definitions of the words, an eternity is time without end. In this context, the idea of a “timeless eternity” is an oxymoron.

      I’m sorry but your ideas of the afterlife break apart once you stop talking in purely abstract terms. Besides, why does Purgatory seem to be immune from the “unchanging afterlife” rule? How did angels come to hate God and become demons if they cannot change?

      I’m not sure you’ve thought this through.

      • Cozmo the Magician

        Oh there are SOOO many examples in the bible where big sky baby can’t even make up his own damn mind. Biggest example : “Hey, here are 10 (or twenty) (or 100) rules you ALL must follow…. ” Then many years later “Hmm, guess instead I’ll incarnate myself and kill myself to attone for you all breaking my rules…”

        • Greg G.

          Hey, here are 10 (or twenty) (or 100) rules you ALL must follow….

          The Jews counted 613 and they were all equally important. Jesus seemed to agree with that in:

          Mark 10:19 (NRSV)19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’”

          He must have changed his mind after meditating or something:

          Mark 12:29-31 (NRSV)29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Well, come on, in THOSE cases he was in a mere ‘human’ form… oh wait.. nvm.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Jews counted 613 and they were all equally important.

          613 Mitzvot. All of which are to be treated on an equal footing, though some are now obsolete. God’s continuity man needs sacked.

          The Decalogue or Aseret ha-Dibrot, are the ten category headings of the Mitzvot.

          http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

          http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

      • Gary Whittenberger

        I am sure that he hasn’t thought it through.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      So the best option is to make sure nobody knows about God, then they can’t hate him and go to hell.

      Wouldn’t that have been easier than the stupid temporary suicide plan? How did that work, did everyone automatically hate God until Jesus died?

    • Cozmo the Magician

      Your water metaphor sucks. You (like many jesus humpers) assume that we ‘choose to reject god’. That is 100% bullshit. We have brains, and our brains tell us that your evil bigoted fairy god father is a nothing more than a myth. A better analogy would be:
      God made us so that we need water. God also made some of us ALLERGIC to water. So when we die of dehydration it is the fault of the god that you gleefully worship. IE, it just shows that you are a prick , just like your god. Funny that.. People ALWAYS worship god(s) that have the same morals (or lack thereof) that they do.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Cozmo, get a hold of yourself. Just because the guy is mistaken, you shouldn’t call him a prick. Educate him; don’t insult him.

      • David Peebles

        Sorry, your re-casting of the water metaphor doesn’t work any better for me. Anybody allergic to water would, by definition, be dead (the human body consisting of something like 80 or 90+ percent of water).
        Though I sometimes feel in tune with W.C. Fields, who never let water pass his lips (he preferred alcohol).

        • Cozmo the Magician

          point —–>>>>
          O
          / |
          |
          /
          ^ you

        • Greg G.

          point —–>>>>
          O
          / |
          |
          /
          ^ you

          ETA, use the “pre” tag so that the spaces will be preserved.

          <pre> </pre>

        • Cozmo the Magician

          thanks..

        • David Peebles

          Wow! I must really be dense. I don’t see the meaning of your graphic at all. Sorry.

        • “I don’t drink water. Fish piss in it.” — WC Fields

          (Though the second verb has been variously given as “shit” or “fuck” as well.)

        • Greg G.

          Drink Bear Whiz Beer.
          https://youtu.be/_rmwEyIBBQM

        • Otto

          I have a Bear Whiz Beer T shirt…;)

      • Tangent: I’d love to see some fundamentalist say, “Look–from my standpoint, gays are A-OK with me. I think they should have equal rights, be able to get married, and all that. But my read of the Bible says that same-sex marriage is against the rules.”

        But they never do. They never have any heartburn with what they think God commands. They see God in the mirror.

    • Ignorant Amos

      People like Hitler and Stalin who hate God wouldn’t want to spend Eternity in the closest possible intimacy with Him.

      How does that work then soft boy? How can one hate something one doesn’t believe exists?

      And did Hitler disbelieve God existed? It seems extremely doubtful. He probably didn’t believe in your version mind you, but then I doubt many do.

      Hitler only needed to repent at the end and he’d pass muster…while according to your mumbo-jumbo…Anne Frank is burning in Hell…nice one, NOT!

    • Gary Whittenberger

      T1: Hell is easy to explain. God created Hell as an act of love for those who hate Him.

      GW1: Nope! If God existed, the creation of hell would not be an act of love for anyone. It would be an act of hate.

      T1: People like Hitler and Stalin who hate God wouldn’t want to spend Eternity in the closest possible intimacy with Him. So God sends them to Hell where the don’t have to be with Him.

      GW1: So, it would be an act of love to send them to eternal torment? Nonsense.

      T1: Their suffering in Hell isn’t caused by God. Rather it’s caused by their choice to reject the only thing that can truly make them happy.

      GW1: Nonsense. They wouldn’t send themselves to hell. They would have neither the power nor the motivation. But God would have the power and motivation, so he would be the sender.

      T1: God created us to be truly happy only with Him. Just as God created us to need water to survive on earth.

      GW1: More nonsense. If God existed, he would be everywhere, and if he created us to be happy with him, then everyone would be happy all the time. But this is not the case. Conclusions?

      T1: Hence if a man on earth decides he hates water and refuses to drink he will suffer. Is he suffering because of the water? Of course not he’s suffering because he has rejected what’s good for him.

      GW1: There is no God to reject. Who would hate water? Nonsense.

      T1: So too a man in Hell suffers because he has made of himself someone who hates what’s necessary for his happiness.

      GW1: God does not exist, so he can’t be hated.

      T1: But why is Hell forever? That’s because there is no time in Heaven. We don’t grow or change after we reach Heaven, or Hell. Hence if when we die we hate God we will never change to not hating Him.

      GW1: You have misunderstood Christian theology. Both heaven and hell are forever, according to the theory.

      T1: Why is there no change in Heaven? If there were change in Heaven then we couldn’t be perfectly happy since we’d be on a journey to perfection instead of having reached it. Once we’re perfect and perfectly happy why would we change? Now if we sin but we repent, even at the last minute, or if we do bad things but honestly don’t think they were bad, and hence they’re not counted against us since sin is an act of will, but we die imperfect we go to Purgatory where we are refined and made perfect.

      GW1: Of course there would be change in heaven and hell. Any action of anyone entails a change. Can anyone be perfectly happy without the opportunity and process of improvement? I’m skeptical of that. If God did exist, repentance would be irrelevant and unhelpful. Purgatory is another bad idea added later to the other bad ideas.

      T1: But if we die hating God we’re unlikely to want to change.

      GW1: God doesn’t exist, so there can be no hating him. Some people may hate the content of their delusions and hallucinations.

    • In Zoroastrism, the place where Judaism got those ideas instead of a generic and gloomy afterlife for everyone (Sheol, early Hades, etc) and came later to others, even sinners would be purged and be sent up. Eternal punishment is excessive for even the most murderous person one can imagine and even more for people who rejected God because either evidence -just a book and one that has a number of faults- was flimsy, either what happens in the world gives strong doubts of his existence, either because of those who claim to follow him, and/or other reasons, but behaved better than a number of those who claim to follow him.

      This without bringing up other issues.

      • Ignorant Amos

        I think it was Hitchens that made the point that the god of the NT, aka Jesus, was even worse than that twat in the OT, because the NT punishment was eternal.

    • LastManOnEarth

      But why the torment? Couldn’t a halfway decent god construct a system whereby those that don’t kiss his ass end up in a reasonably pleasant place (or no place at all)?

      This god of yours sounds like an insecure petty tyrant or abusive spouse. “Love me or suffer!”

      • According to some scholars John, or whoever wrote the gospel of John, was an annihilationist and the famous John 3:16 should be interpreted not as unbelievers being sent to Hell but to dev/null instead (or maybe the pagan afterlifes, who knows. That stuff is described as if it was a monopoly) that is far more merciful than the former.

        Still, omnibenevolence fails there.

  • Halbe

    What I find especially hilarious are the Christians that claim they and their God are sad about people ending up in hell. How could God be sad when He is supposedly meting out perfect justice according to His very own perfect plan? And a Christian being sad about God’s perfect justice looks a lot like heresy to me. Almost as if that Christian has their own moral compass that is not in sync with God’s perfect plan…

    • Gary Whittenberger

      Yes, they don’t understand the irony of it.

  • skl

    “So we’re supposed to accept an insane interpretation of
    justice—infinite punishment in hell for finite crimes here on earth”

    It may not be fair, but it is balanced (i.e. infinite reward in heaven for finite acts here on earth).

    “Yet again, I’m not sure how humans can be so radically out
    of sync with God’s “morality” when we were supposedly created in his image.”

    The biblical answer may be that ‘in the image and likeness’
    is not the same as ‘identical to.’

    “That the saints [in heaven] may enjoy their beatitude more
    thoroughly … a perfect sight of punishment of the damned is granted them.”

    That might not be too unlike how Patheos Nonreligious bloggers and commenters [in the heaven of atheism] discuss with apparent glee the constant stream of religious people being caught in their misdeeds and hypocrisies.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      It may not be fair, but it is balanced (i.e. infinite reward in heaven for finite acts here on earth).

      Does that even make sense to YOU?

      • Sam

        Of course not, but expect him to parrot it once more.

        • Greg G.

          Hold your cards! We have a Bingo!

      • skl

        Obviously.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I understand what you mean by “balanced,” but the system would still be immoral, and thus would never be implemented by God, if he did exist, which he doesn’t.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Does he mean “balanced” like Fox News is “fair and balanced”?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I think he means that it is balanced in the sense that hell is forever and heaven is forever. It would still be an immoral system. If God did exist, he would never set up a system like that.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          In order to give people infinite life in heaven, He had to give other people infinite torture in hell?
          Some sort of conservation of torment?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Yes, I think that is the balance he’s thinking about. Conservation of pain and pleasure.

    • It may not be fair, but it is balanced

      God may not be sane, but he is an asshole.

      (Yeah, you’ve nicely salvaged the Christian model of the afterlife.)

      The biblical answer may be that ‘in the image and likeness’
      is not the same as ‘identical to.’

      So our moral sense is in the image and likeness of God’s and yet it’s still completely different.

      Nice save.

      That might not be too unlike how Patheos Nonreligious bl oggers and commenters discuss with apparent glee the constant stream of misdeeds and hypocrisies
      of the religious.

      Show us how anyone here would be delighted to see just you roast forever. You may be a dick, but a few seconds of your anguish would satisfy us.

      • Syzygy

        God is not “an asshole.” He’s the ASSHOLE of the Universe.
        There’s none greater.

        • Greg G.

          Is a maximally great asshole a proof of a god thingy?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          A god who exists would obviously be a bigger asshole than a god that doesn’t exist…

        • Ignorant Amos

          The perfect asshole….now there’s a thought.

        • LastManOnEarth

          The gives an intriguing new perspective on the Big Bang.

        • Greg G.

          Then Hell can be explained as the result of a jalapeno bean burrito.

        • That’s an interesting use of the Ontological Argument.

      • skl

        “Show us how anyone here would be delighted to see just you
        roast forever. You may be a dick, but a few seconds of your anguish would
        satisfy us.”

        That’s a tough one, because I’ve never felt anguish here.
        But I think others have tried to cause me anguish and think I should
        be
        anguished by their smug comments. And they don’t do it just once or twice, for a few seconds. They do it day after day after day after day.
        Kind of like “forever”!

        • Christian hell is substantially worse than the vexations you might see here.

        • skl

          I guess you just missed the gist of my original point.

        • Otto

          Since when have you ever had a point?

        • Ignorant Amos

          At lest not an original one worth getting the gist of anyway.

        • eric

          Your original points were:
          1. God’s system of judgment is not fair.
          2. God did not give us a moral compass directly aligned to the morality he wants us to follow.
          3. Some people in heaven may get joy in watching others burn in hell the same way some people on this thread like to insult you.

          None of these points actually defend God’s plan, in the sense of arguing how that plan is a good one. They might describe a plan which is consistent with what we observe, but the plan your points describe is horrible both in terms of the outcomes it leads to and in terms of being horribly ineffective at achieving the goals described by the theology.

          So yes, we got your points. And no, they do absolutely nothing to defend Christianity as either a moral theology or even a self-consistent one.

        • skl

          “Your original points were:
          1. God’s system of judgment is not fair.”

          No, I wrote it may not be fair.

          “2. God did not give us a moral compass directly aligned to the morality he wants us to follow.”

          I didn’t say that either. I just said the biblical answer may
          be that ‘in the image and likeness’ is not the same as ‘identical to.’

          Which could mean a) in some respects humans are identical to god and just similar in other respects, or b) in no respects
          humans are identical to god, just similar.

          “3. Some people in heaven may get joy in watching others burn in hell the same way some people on this thread like to insult you.”

          Another thing I did not say. I was addressing how the former could be comparable to Patheos Nonreligious’ daily mockery of religion and infamous religionists in the news, not daily mockery of me.

          “So yes, we got your points.”

          Obviously not.

        • I’ve hard to hear certain Fundies calling skeptics insane because the Bible says so, that other gods were demons (I’m not a pagan but I find that a lack of respect), and that Buddha and Confucious will bow upon Christ and be judged (more of the same) when he returns, among other gems I cannot remember now.

          If you don’t like people responding to those provocations, it’s not our fault. Nobody asked you to comto come.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Another thing I did not say. I was addressing how the former could be comparable to Patheos Nonreligious’ daily mockery of religion and infamous religionists in the news, not daily mockery of me.

          Whaaa?

          But I think others have tried to cause me anguish and think I should
          be anguished by their smug comments. And they don’t do it just once or twice, for a few seconds. They do it day after day after day after day.
          Kind of like “forever”!

        • Otto

          Boo…fuckin …hoo. You are treated like an asshole because you act like an asshole. The only thing anyone here wants you to do is to stop acting like an asshole. You have all the control so stop martyrbating.

        • skl

          “Boo…fuckin …hoo.”

          No need. Not for me, anyway. I’m doing just fine.

        • Otto

          Don’t worry…I wouldn’t cross the street to pee on you if you were on fire.

        • skl

          “I wouldn’t cross the street to pee on you if you were on fire.”

          Gee! Sounds like you’re OK with some people being in
          physical and mental agony for the rest of their existence.

          At least you have that much in common with that biblical god.

        • Otto

          I would comment “that doesn’t even make sense”…but nothing you say ever does.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There’s a difference between a short period of anguish and an ETERNITY of anguish.

          Learn to recognize detail.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Learn …

          Bwaaahahaha…that’s a laptop ya owe me…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s a tactic….y’see, I sell *keyboard skins*…

          😉

        • skl

          Time is relative.

          It feels like an eternity since I saw you
          post anything I agreed with.

        • Lark62

          The difference between us and your deity is that it’s fine with us if you leave. No one is making you either come or stay.

        • skl

          What does not leave are the Patheos Nonreligious bloggers and commenters [in the heaven of atheism] discussing with
          apparent glee the constant stream of religious people being caught in their misdeeds and hypocrisies.

          Quite like the above’s “That the saints [in heaven] may
          enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly … a perfect sight of punishment of the damned is granted them.”

          Which was my original point.

        • ildi

          [in the heaven of atheism] – you think atheism is heaven? Or, you think atheists think atheism is heaven? Where did you get that idea?

          “discussing with apparent glee” – I haven’t seen glee, I’ve seen anger, frustration, relief maybe…

          “religious people being caught in their misdeeds” – you categorize sexual assault, rape, predatory behavior, theft as misdeeds? Really?

          “perfect sight of punishment of the damned” – you realize that that per Christian doctrine they’re being punished for a thought crime, right?

          In summary, you’re comparing atheists’ reaction to criminals being finally held accountable (if not actually punished because the cult mentality protects them) to the enhancement of rewards for having the right thoughts by watching people with the wrong thoughts being tortured for eternity.

          I think your values are skewed.

        • Any glee (I’ve seen very little) is because it highlights their hypocrisy, not because we want conservatives punished.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Kind of like “forever”!

          Demonstrating your idiocy.

          You do realize your feet are not nailed to the floor, right?

      • eric

        So our moral sense is in the image and likeness of God’s and yet it’s still completely different.

        Nice save.

        Not to mention, this just increases the problem of God’s unfairness. He makes us in his ‘image and likeness’ but neglects to give us an identical morality…and then punishes us for not following a morality identical to his.

        Funny, whenever sci-fi writers and futurists write about moral rules for AIs, they never appear to use the ‘God model’ of giving them a set of rules they aren’t quite supposed to follow. I expect that’s because such a system appears to us to be suboptimal and flawed. What idiots we are not to see it’s perfection!

        • And then what are God’s moral rules? God does insane stuff in the OT, and then modern Christians are left trying to tap dance away from God’s obvious immorality. “Uh … God must not have to follow the same moral rules. Yeah! Yeah, that’s it! God only looks like an unhinged sociopath!”

          “Then what rules does he follow?”

      • Verbose Stoic

        So our moral sense is in the image and likeness of God’s and yet it’s still completely different.

        Nice save.

        Biblically, God created humans in his own image and yet humans did not have the capacity for morality, to determine good from evil. So, yeah, you appealing to “his own image” as an argument here doesn’t work.

        Fortunately for you, you can replace it with the capacity for determining good from evil and your argument can proceed pretty much unaltered.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Biblically, God created humans in his own image and yet humans did not have the capacity for morality, to determine good from evil.

          Wait a wee minute…“…humans did not have the capacity for morality, to determine good from evil”….a tautology, but the argument can then proceed unaltered by replacing it with “…the capacity for determining good from evil…” the second part of the tautology and his argument can proceed sound? Seriously? Does that make sense to you?

          But of course….

          Apparently, according to the story anyway, there was no need for a capacity for morality, to determine good from evil, until the serpent coerced Eve into eating from the Tree and then her, by coaxing Adam to indulge in the same. So the difference between good and evil, aka morality, had to be taught.

          But then YahwehJesus was a bad bastard anyway, so whose to say that the capacity for that morality wasn’t there from the get go? After all, the serpent didn’t have too difficult a job getting Eve to break the stupid rules, or Eve getting Adam to follow suit.

          Or it’s just all a stupid story in a silly old book to justify why folk do bad shit, that too many idiots have taken seriously over the last few millennia and Bob is playing DA.

          Edited.

        • I guess it depends on which creation story you go with. You raise a good point that morality was an add-on in the Garden of Eden story. But even in that case, the morality that humans would get from eating the fruit is said to be the same as God’s morality. (That’s what the serpent said in Gen. 3:5, and he was correct on every point.)

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Until you can demonstrate this ‘god’ you prattle on about is anything more than a destructive meme, you’re not going to have any support for your assertions.

    • Gary Whittenberger

      “It may not be fair, but it is balanced (i.e. infinite reward in heaven for finite acts here on earth).”

      It would be immoral and so if God existed, he would never implement such a system, even if you consider it “balanced.”

    • Joe

      “Balanced” is not the same as “fair”.

      • skl

        Yes, I know.

        That’s why I said “It may not be fair, but it is balanced.”

        Perhaps you meant it’s not fair to have infinite reward in
        heaven for finite acts here on earth.

        • Joe

          Who cares about balance?

        • Otto

          And how is it balanced anyway? More complete bullshit from him.

        • Joe

          It’s just his semantics to try and justify his god. “Balance” sounds like fairness to him, so he uses that definition. In real life, good on it’s own is preferable, without the necessity to “balance” it with evil.

          It’s not like when a baby is born the family kill another of their children to balance out their happiness.

        • Otto

          But he is ‘balancing’ finite with infinite as if that makes sense. He is a walking oxymoron.

        • Joe

          The “oxy” is redundant.

        • skl

          People who care about diction.

    • ERRN55

      The biblical answer may be that ‘in the image and likeness’
      is not the same as ‘identical to.’
      So what is YOUR interpretation- we look like him? How shallow (and ridiculous). Created the heavens and earth in 6 days- and he then had to rest? So he used hands- like ours- to do this. I think I can get you a job with Ken Ham.

      • skl

        “So what is YOUR interpretation- we look like him?”

        MY interpretation is that ‘in the image and likeness’ is not
        the same as ‘identical to.’ Because otherwise, the writer of Genesis and all
        the believers since then would think they’re gods. But they don’t.

        As to “looks”, I guess christians think they look like god the son, in that they, too, are human, with all the arms, legs, hair, brains, etc. that go with it.

    • The opposite is not and flies straight into the face of omnibenevolence.

      • skl

        I wish someone could find in the bible that word I see so often here – “omnibenevolence”.

        • skl

          Yes, as I said.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wankstain Ski is pretending to be some thing it is not…a decent human being.

          By pretending to be an atheist and poorly playing the village idiot….poorly being an idiot…imagine that? Being wick at being wick ffs….he’s being a bastard. A dopey bastard fer sure, but a bastard all the same. Still, a funny cunt too…so a bonus in that respect.

        • Greg G.

          I came up with Psalm 100:5 at a different page from that other Cross Examined site by Google.

        • Joe

          Same for a whole host of apologetic terms and ideas. They seem to have been simply invented, rather than taken from scripture.

        • Greg G.

          Omnibenevolent – Wikipedia
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence

          Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning “all”, bene- meaning “good” and volens meaning “willing”) is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence”.

          Being derived from Latin, it is unlikely to be found in the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, or any New Testament writings. The Wikipedia article also says:

          “Omnibenevolence” appears to have a very casual usage among some Protestant Christian commentators. The earliest record for its use in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is in 1679.

          Which means the word was coined much later than the latest Bible writing.

          But Psalm 100:5 says God is “good”, the “willing” is seen in “faithfulness”, while “steadfast love”, “endures forever”, and “all generations” emphasizes “all”.

          Psalm 100:5 (NRSV)5 For the Lord is good;    his steadfast love endures forever,    and his faithfulness to all generations.

          So the concept is certainly implied in the Bible.

        • skl

          As I said, I wish someone could find in the bible that word I see so often here – “omnibenevolence”.

        • Greg G.

          You have been told why the word is not in the Bible. The concept is in the Bible. Omnipotence is a characteristic of the god thingy of modern Christians.

        • Otto

          You act like atheists just made it up and Christians haven’t made that claim about God for 2000 years…you dishonest twit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is it not there…holy fuck…what a surprise…a bunch-a-cunts went and made that shite up….who’d have have thought it?

          Did ya ever see some folk on this site talk about the fact that the buybull was a bunch of made up shite? Did you ever do anything in anyway effectual in refuting that position…even as a faux atheist…tosspot? Go take yer disingenuous heed foer a shite, why don’t ye?

        • ildi

          I’m confused; are you saying Christians don’t generally believe God is omnibenevolent, or that Christians mistakenly believe so without actual biblical evidence?

        • Bob Jase

          Christians say “God is love” but they know that’s a lie.

        • skl

          I’m saying christians are confused. At least many of them.

          – They’re using (or at least atheists here are certainly using) a word that doesn’t appear in their book.

          – Even if it did appear in their book (which it doesn’t), at least some of them (and virtually all atheists) think it means this god never does or allows things they don’t like.

          – At least some of them appear oblivious to the obvious – the biblical god is a god of extremes – one who rewards extremely and punishes extremely.

        • Otto

          Any chance you would care to share an example of when you told a Christian they were wrong regarding their belief that God is Omnibenevolent or are you just here to troll?

          FYI that question is just rhetorical, we all know you are a troll.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are the one that is confused. You clearly don’t understand theological exegesis and hermeneutics. No surprise there then.

          Books are more than the sum of their word contents.

          The philosophical justification stems from God’s aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.

          God has to be omnibenevolent by its very nature.

          That the buybull is contradictory to the attribute is not our fault. That Christian’s have to claim the attribute is not our fault.

          That is not the fault of atheists, it’s a claim most Christian’s make. We atheists know it’s a lot of ballix. You seem to have a problem in us lot countering a claim we never made. Go take it up with those in whose fault it lies. Stating the obvious here that the specific term isn’t used in the buybull screed, is just stating the obvious. There are plenty of other examples of the same. Pointing out that Christian’s are wrong about their interpretation of their god, well no shit Sherlock…that’s partially the point of this counter apologetic forum.

        • ildi

          Even if it did appear in their book (which it doesn’t), at least some of them (and virtually all atheists) think it means this god never does or allows things they don’t like.

          I don’t know where you get your interpretations regarding atheists, certainly not from this blog, and the I’d be interested which Christian writings support the idea that an all-loving God never does things Christians don’t like.

          Here’s a nice little essay that encapsulates Christian doctrine; it’s really not behavior per se but thoughts and attitudes that are rewarded or punished. The Christian god created humans because he has the need to be glorified and worshiped (odd that a perfect and eternal being suddenly develops a need – but I digress). God is all-loving, and since he’s the perfect thing to love, he loves himself the most.

          https://www.godcontention.org/christian/is-god-omnibenevolent
          If, on the other hand, it means that God is always and only desiring the eternal and ultimate happiness of all humans, then no, God is not omnibenevolent

          Our omnibenevolent God instead glorifies Himself first and foremost (Isaiah 48:9; Ezekiel 20:9; Matthew 19:29, 24:9), as He should, since He Himself is the ground of all being (Exodus 3:14; Genesis 1:1; John 1:3) and the author of all legitimate ethical standards (Malachi 3:18). God Himself is the measure of all things, and “the good” is that which glorifies Him.

          According to scripture, if we confess with our mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved from the second death — the fiery torment of a very real hell.

          I think this is why so many Christians don’t seem to really care that the pastor/priest has molested/raped/ripped congregants of their life savings/otherwise act as con artists: it’s really not about behavior, it’s about belief. If you think that humans are irredeemably wicked, then, sure, they can try to be good people, but it’s going to be ultimately a failure.

          Related, I do not recognize humanism as described here: In Christianity, that-which-is-good, namely the glory of God, does not equate to humanism’s version of that-which-is-good, namely the glory of man, even though most of us humans want it to.
          It reflects a hierarchical zero-sum worldview. When I was Catholic, I felt that I was “safe” i.e., though there was the concept of purgatory, so I did have to do some time, ultimately I was safe from hell, so even though that didn’t put me at the top of the heap, it sure did make me the center of this perfect being’s world (talk about glory of man!) Conversely, when I realized I didn’t believe in any deities or an afterlife, and learned through science how huge this universe is, and how nothing we are compared to it, I developed a humility about us even evolving to be self-aware in this fragile ecosystem.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What does perfection imply?

        • Tommy

          It’s right there next to the words “omniscience”, “omnipotence”, and “omnipresence”.

        • And I wish someone could find in the Bible that word I so often see from Christians – “Trinity”.

        • ildi

          Also, Jesus never actually says “I am God”

        • MR

          Or abortion.

        • Well, actually it is mentioned, in the Trial of Bitter Waters. A woman suspected of adultery is given an abortifacient.

          Abortion isn’t a problem; raising another man’s child–that’s a problem.

        • MR

          Well, yes, the act (ironically sanctioned in the holy book), but not the word itself. All this drama and it doesn’t even appear in the glossary. 😉

  • RichardSRussell

    If you [a Christian] found yourself on Judgement Day standing next to an unbeliever you cared for and liked and Jesus offered to either annihilate you both or send you to heaven and your friend to hell for eternity, which would you choose and why?

    Thank you for your kind and thotful response, Mr. Koukl. Would you mind a follow-up question? Here it is:

    If you [a Christian] found yourself on Judgement Day standing next to a Muslim you cared for and liked and Allah offered to either annihilate you both or send you to hell and your friend to paradise for eternity, which should your friend choose and why?

  • Cozmo the Magician

    I’d ask him this: If you found yourself next to a child who was raped by a priest and then committed suicide, how the fuck could you even BEGIN to consider your god ‘just’.

  • Gary Whittenberger

    GW: Another good article by Bob Seidensticker.

    Bob: God can’t defend or even explain his policies, but he has self-appointed people eager to put words in his mouth.

    GW: But God does not exist! If he did, he would have already explained and defended his own policies to everyone. He wouldn’t need or want human messengers.

    Bob: Koukl has unwarranted confidence in his interpretation of God’s wishes.

    GW: I don’t see how he can have any confidence at all since there is no good evidence that God exists or if he does that God has communicated with any human person.

    Bob: He [Koukl] explained that when we get heavenly enlightenment, we will understand that “God’s judgments are just.”

    GW: If God exists, this claim is probably correct, but Koukl will really be surprised with God’s system of justice. If God does exist, everyone will spend a period of time in hell first and then a period of time in heaven, the periods proportional to the number and magnitude of bad acts and good acts, respectively. There will be no forgiveness, mercy, atonement, salvation, cheating, bargaining, extremes of suffering or pleasure, and no contingencies based merely on beliefs or apologies. Hell will be like a prison cell and heaven will be like a five-star hotel. Now that would be real justice!

    Koukl: “On this system, forgiveness is available and [the damned] did not avail themselves of it, and they are justly punished for what they did and I am unjustly . . . forgiven.”

    GW: Koukl is just mistaken about God’s system, if he did exist. There would be no forgiveness, only individual accountability and justice. Koukl likes the idea of cheating, as most Christians do.

    Bob: “Justice”? Ask anyone if hell is the justice they’d impose if they were the boss. Koukl here is judging God’s plan as reasonable and good when it obviously isn’t according to any human interpretation.

    GW: I agree, Bob. No moral person would impose eternal torment on any other person. If God did exist and were perfectly moral, then he wouldn’t either. Extreme punishments and mercy became popular ideas in the eras of unjust kings. These ideas are now obsolete.

    • Greg G.

      GW: But God does not exist! If he did, he would have already explained and defended his own policies to everyone. He wouldn’t need or want human messengers.

      Excellent point, Gary. How do the human messengers get the messages? If the people are willing to listen to the messengers, why wouldn’t they listen to the message the same way the human messengers do?

      • Gary Whittenberger

        If God did exist, he would be his own messenger, i.e. he would meet with all persons, do a few miracles, and then explain his wishes, requirements, and contingencies. Any moral teacher teaches the lesson before grading the test.

  • Mythblaster
  • As an aside on the article, Heaven is not so pretty when, if one goes by the book and not those PIDOOMAs of Fundies I’m too used to hear, one thinks no sin means no free will, bliss can not be fully enjoyed as it never stops, your job will be to worship forever and ever, ever (have you seen that “timeline of the far future” in Wikipedia?. Imagine spending all those zillions of years that way), physical limitations of everything new (just a city that you’ll have plenty of time in an eternity to explore again and again and again, no sea, no stars, no Moon, etc), that there’ll be no memories of the old Earth and heavens (ie: oblivious to all those billions of people being forever tortured), nothing will ever change, and other issues I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere such as being surrounded by those babies who died too young and ended up there, and who would probably have not grown as a normal child.

    I very seriously doubt even the most die-hard Fundie, the very same ones who complain about skeptics being full of BS and threat them with eternal torment, would endure there even a fraction of those times mentioned in that article.

    Have fun attempting to argue with infinity.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      Christians also like to claim that if there is no afterlife, then this life is meaningless. And that’s horrible.

      But if there’s no after afterlife after heaven, then life in heaven is also meaningless. And as they say, a meaningless life is horrible.

      • Otto

        Since there is not afterlife for a car, their car is also meaningless. What do you think the chances are they will give me their car?

        • Tommy

          There’s no after life for their money either, that’s why they should wire all their money into my accounts. 😉

      • LastManOnEarth

        The grand irony is that THIS is the afterlife where we are reaping the just rewards of a previous life in another realm. That we don’t remember the actions that got us here is part of The Plan.

        Whether this is the Good Place, Bad PL, or something Else is an exercise left to the reader.

  • Kev Green

    Putting aside the philosophical issues; claiming that everyone has an opportunity to accept forgiveness is demonstrably wrong. If someone is born in a part of the world where Christianity isn’t treated as the default religion they have little chance of being saved. Not only are they likely to believe in another religion, but many will never even hear the name Jesus. Since Christianity is the dominant religion primarily in countries with majority white populations ‘it’s your own fault if you’re damned’ isn’t just narcissistic it’s also incredibly racist.

    • eric

      claiming that everyone has an opportunity to accept forgiveness is demonstrably wrong.

      Ha! Evangelical fundies even have a response to this. They’ll quote Romans 1:18-20 (or a few other similar bible verses), and argue that since The Bible says everyone – literally, everyone – knows God exists, the people who claim to be atheists or who lived before Jesus were simply lying so that they could sin. According to this flavor of Christianity, everyone has an inborn knowledge of God.

      Now, how do they explain the fact that global and historical “feigned ignorance” of God exactly matches the historical and cultural pattern we would expect from true ignorance? I have no idea. Coincidence, maybe? Or perhaps through some subtextual racism (i.e. all those olive-skinned asians are sinners).

      • Ignorant Amos

        The Pirahã People of South America are evidence that not everyone even has a god hole needing to be filled. And one example is all that is necessary to refute a hypothesis.

        According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god, and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3

        Epic fail of a multi-omni universe creating entity if ya ask me.

        • eric

          The fundies will reply: oh they know God exists. They’re just sneakily lying about it, even to the anthropologists who visit them.

          Remember, this is not a rational line of argument: it’s working backwards from the conclusion that the bible must be true. If the bible says everyone knows, and it doesn’t look like the Piraha know, then they must be lying about it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yip…or the universal get out clause…the Devil-done-it for what God-couldn’t-prevent…the useless non-omnipotent cunt.

      • Yeah, I’ve heard that verse plus Psalm 14.1 used to attempt to justify skeptics are insane or that.

        Frankly, to have to use the Bible for even that when those verses are not in one of the four Gospels is either to be desperated or one of the pinnacles of Fundie stupidity -maybe both-, especially knowing how faulty is that book. You remove it and they’ve no ground to base their BS.

    • Raging Bee

      Not to mention all the people who grow up in Christian societies and get such an appallingly bad presentation of Jesus that they’re simply unable to believe any of it, accept him as their Savior, or ask him for forgiveness.

  • Tommy

    This silly analogy tells me more about Koukl than about the god he claims to worship. He admits he’s willing to fuck over his best friend so he could live forever in joy and pleasure while knowing his friend is living forever in pain and suffering. I and plenty of other decent human beings would pick option #1 for love of our friend. But wait… What if it was all a test? What if God were testing Koukl in order to see if he’s worthy of heaven? If Koukl chooses option #2, then God might say, “You chose poorly.” And then immediately send him on the one way express to You Know Where. And then God would tell the friend that his sins are forgiven and allow him into heaven.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Just the betrayal of a friend aspect would knaw at any decent person and turn even ‘heaven’ into bitter dust.

      • Tommy

        Exactly. God offered Koukl a way to save his friend from Hell, and Koukl chose not to!

    • Raging Bee

      And ceasing to exist altogether wouldn’t have been that huge a sacrifice to keep a friend out of Hell. It’s not like the guy had to suffer in Hell for eternity to keep his friend out of it.

      • zenmite

        Death terror seems to be at the root of most religious belief. The whole reason for Koukl’s belief and worship of Jesus / God is likely to get the prize of eternal life….you don’t have to die! This scenario ( giving up eternal life in exchange for his friend not going to hell) takes away his reason for being a christian. Koukl is just trying to twist and turn and justify his selfish choice of sending his friend to hell so that Koukl can get his prize. I told a christian once that he was a better father than his god. Most christians are better people & more moral than their god…it doesn’t take much.

        God’s ways are greater than man’s…..we can not understand his justice until we die and go to heaven. That line of reasoning could work for most anyone; Couldn’t Andrea Yates have said that since god told her to kill her children, what she did was good and right since god commanded her to do it? If we object, she could just say His ways are mysterious and beyond us puny humans’ morality and intellect or ability to understand. The 911 hijackers would likely have told you something similar…all the innocent lives lost were just part of god’s plan. You can justify anything like this…sacrificing children, torture, etc.

      • David Peebles

        Mark Twain, and others, argued that all the most interesting people were in hell. The thought of being in heaven reminds me of the tedious hours I wasted in “summer vacation bible school.” Thanks, I already did my penance.

        • Raging Bee

          Yeah, my dad gave up trying to explain to me why Heaven was allegedly so wonderful back when I was about 9-10.

  • Greg G.

    Does Jesus and Mo follow Ignorant Amos?

    http://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/clever/

    • Ignorant Amos

      Haa-ha…now that’s funny…except not Jesus and Mo, the bar tending person.

  • Gord O’Mitey

    Of course I don’t explain My policies to you humans. I don’t know what the fuck they are Myself!

  • Otto
  • ERRN55

    This even proves how much more moral us mere mortals are (save the ‘christian’ death penalty folks). No matter how heinous a crime is we put limits on how long someone is punished. “life plus 165 years (only Moses would get out).” Life sentences are often cut short for humanitarian reasons due to failing health, mental status etc. Now I’m not all about letting dangerous people go but that isn’t even in ‘his’ book. Eternal damnation even if your only ‘crime’ is not believing in the unseeable/ unaccountable / evidenceless being.

  • Damian Byrne

    “Is Koukl being selfish?
    Koukl anticipates the charge that he’s being selfish, that he’ll make the other person go to hell just so he gets heaven.”

    A while ago, on a different forum, I posed a similar moral question to Christians. I asked them basically if they approved of the concept of receiving benefits from the punishment, torture and execution of an innocent man. I gave two statements about myself.
    “I would try to prevent the torture and execution of an innocent man.
    I would not accept the benefits (if any) that comes with the torture and execution of an innocent man unless I was willing to perform the torture and execution myself. ”

    To date, no-one from the Christian camp on that website has said the same about themselves. I even pointed out that if they were willing to say they would accept the benefits, that if they were willing to perform the torture and execution of an innocent man (referring to Jesus) or condoning it at the very least, then this would prove they don’t deserve it anyway, since then they’d be selfish and savage. I asked wouldn’t this prove that I, the person unwilling to condone Jesus’s imprisonment, torture and painful death, would deserve heaven ahead of the Christian?
    Again…no response.

    • Ignorant Amos

      But according to the story, Jesus wasn’t innocent. The law might not have been a just law by many right minded people by today’s standards, but it was what it was. It wasn’t the Sanhedrin’s fault that Jesus was less than convincing…if he was a god, then he could’ve, so he either wasn’t, or didn’t wanna…this is where the story is full plot-holes.

      There are a number of places today where blasphemy can get one the death penalty. Even in Ireland it can get ya a €25,000 fine…though it’s an equal opportunities blasphemy law…but still, who has that sort of money to spare? And if ya can’t pay a fine ya know where ya’ll end up.

      https://atheist.ie/campaigns/blasphemy-law/

      • Damian Byrne

        According to Christians, Jesus was sinless. He was/is the perfect man, the new Adam, blameless, unable to do wrong. So I went with that as a premise. This means an innocent man got tortured and executed, and that, per Christian theology, other humans receive a benefit from this torture and execution.
        I asked, is it moral to accept this benefit. To cash the cheque, so to speak, knowing this is what would happen. I asked if you went back in time, and had the opportunity to prevent the crucifixion, would you?
        I asked how is it I am horrible, and evil, and sinful, and wicked, for refusing to benefit from this torture and execution, for refusing to condone it or take part in it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh I agree with you on what Christians believe about Jesus…at least today and for most of the cults history. Early Christians believed all sorts of contrary ju-ju not acceptable today. I was just pointing out the problems with the story…at least the version that became the accepted one anyway.

          I understand the basis for your questions, and the premise in which you present them, and good for you for holding their feet to the fire in doing it.

          I’m just pointing out, for anyone who might be reading and interested, that their premise is false and that their silly scripture backs me up.

          Jesus got baptized…what is the purpose of baptism?

          John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. ~Mark 1:4

          He was a sinner alright…at least according Yahweh’s rules..

          He insulted his mother, breaking the commandment to honor his mother (Ex 20:12, Dt 5:16)

          He broke the Sabbath (Ex 20:8, Dt 5:12) and therefore, according to Ex 31:15, should be stoned to death.

          He coveted his neighbors ass too…well someone elses donkey and colt anyhow.

          Just a few examples.

          Where did the sinless Jesus nonsense come from?

          Perhaps the nonsense is of Paul’s ramblings to the Corinthian’s…

          5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

          So…

          Jesus, who was without sin, was made into sin. This made the real sinners sinless.

          https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2cor/5.html#21

          There is more than one way to skin a cat…showing the ridiculousness of the yarns and what Christians believe and why, is just another way to go at it….just sayin’.

        • Greg G.

          John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. ~Mark 1:4

          The early Christians seem to have had a problem with that. gMatthew has John the Baptist saying that Jesus should be baptizing him but Jesus assures him that it is all for show to fulfill “all righteousness”. Neither gJohn nor gLuke actually say that JtB actually performed the baptism of Jesus, only that Jesus had been baptized. Luke even has a flash-forward that mentions JtB’s arrest that obscures it even more.

          Josephus’ account of John the Baptist very specifically states that the ritual was not for the remission of sins.

          Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 §116
          2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

          Since the only surviving copies of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews seem to be copies from Eusebius, this passage may have been tampered with.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I wouldn’t doubt it wasn’t for sinning originally.

          Ritual cleansing was a thing back in those days, like it is for many airheads today. A tevilah was a repeatable activity carried out by Jews as a means of purification for a whole plethora of reasons.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism#Full-body_immersion

          Seem’s to me the Christian’s plagiarized the ritual for purpose. They seconded it, and made it a handy one-time-only affair to cover all bases. A bit like the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was handy in doing away with temple sacrifice as a repeatable ritual. Those early Christian that come up with this ballix were nothing, if not pragmatic.

        • Bob Jase

          Those early Christian that come up with this ballix were nothing, if not plagaristic.

          FIFY

        • Ignorant Amos

          That too…

        • Otto

          I have a hard time believing Josephus would care about such minutia.

        • The nonsense is that if you do not accept to benefit from it, you’ll be sent to Hell. Not to mention to be held of something that (supposedly) happened 2,000 years ago and especially something that (according to the Bible, anyone that is not a literalist knows is just a tale) happened much earlier, that is even contradicted in the Bible.

      • I know of a Fundie pastor, even if he claims to be “radical”, not “Fundie”, who claims Jesus was executed by religion -the sad part is when he invites atheists and agnostics to join in because Christianism is not a religion, but other times he gives threats of Hell and that’s far from being the best gems of that asshole-.

        I guess was that true Jesus would have been stoned by them and not cruficied by Romans.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Hanging on the cross, Jesus quoted Pee Wee Herman “I meant to do that…”

        It was all part of the plan, see? If he didn’t get himself murdered he wouldn’t be able to calm his rage at humanity and forgive.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And that’s why Judas was the hero in the story, yet has been vilified for all this time…at least the Gospel of Judas clears that issue up.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMvJSYKu_bc

          Judas was a necessary plot device for the plan to work….the one in the NT gospels that is of course…other Jesus stories have no need for it.

          But the story exists…but that doesn’t make it anymore a history than the other nonsense being bandied about at the time either.

  • Guestie

    RE Abraham and Isaac:

    I have been told that the Muslim interpretation is different (though the Koranic text seems very similar to the Mosaic text to me). The Muslim interpretation, I’m told, is that God would never have told Abraham to kill his son because that would be sinful. The voice Abraham heard was actually the devil pretending to be God.

    This makes God the good guy all around, Abraham an innocent dupe, and Satan takes the fall. It seems mighty convenient to me, however.

    ETA: Come to think of it, the Koran suggests that it was Ishmael and not Isaac who was going to be killed by Abraham.

    • Ignorant Amos

      That would be a retcon….Satan was Yahweh’s gambling buddy back in the day.

      The prologue on earth shows the righteous Job blessed with wealth and sons and daughters. The scene shifts to heaven, where God asks Satan (ha-satan, literally “the accuser”) for his opinion of Job’s piety. Satan answers that Job is pious only because God has blessed him; if God were to take away everything that Job had, then he would surely curse God. God gives Satan permission to take Job’s wealth and kill all of his children and servants, but Job nonetheless praises God: “Naked I came out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return: the Lord has given, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” God allows Satan to afflict his body with boils. Job sits in ashes, and his wife prompts him to “curse God, and die,” but Job answers: “Shall we receive good from God and shall we not receive evil?”

      • Guestie

        I suspect it is a retcon although I’m not sure the Job story matters. Since the Koran was written centuries/millennia after the Hebrew text, they get to impose their very own timeline that need not comport. (Like the various Star Trek timelimes!) I’m no scholar of this stuff but it has always seemed that Islam baked the devil into the story from the get go.

        My recollection is from many years ago. Someone told me the Muslim version. I thought “interesting” and then read the sura. And my reaction was, “how the hell did you get that interpretation from this text?” I think it is just a whitewash. Sort of a realization that God is real asshole in the original so let’s come up with a better story.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Mo used a lot of the OT characters for his yarn…some differently of course. The Star Trek analogy is good…I also like to use Sherlock Holmes too.

      • Greg G.

        That would be a retcon….Satan was Yahweh’s gambling buddy back in the day.

        Satan: Fifty bucks says the Ignorant Amos kid picks his nose.
        God: You’re on.

        I have read that scholars think the heart of the Job story is probably the oldest writing in the Bible but the beginning and end with Satan is added on.

        • Why?

        • Greg G.

          Satan disappears for most of the story. He plays no role except at the beginning and the end, which are different contexts. Satan as supernatural entity is not a character in most of the Old Testament texts, popping up later. Compare who incited David to take the census in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1:

          2 Samuel 24:1 (NRSV)1 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.”

          1 Chronicles 21:1 (NRSV)1 Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.

          ETA, The Chronicles are the Readers Digest version of 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings with Elijah and Elisha all but obliterated, plus a little of Isaiah.

        • Tommy

          I guess if you wanted to interpolated texts back then, it was much easier to tack on stuff at the beginning and at the end.

    • Kuno

      I like the interpretation that it was Abraham testing God.

      • Guestie

        Ooohh, I like that too.

        And new to me, so even better.

        • Kuno

          I read it in a Dan Simmons novel. I have no idea if he came up with it.

  • Greg G.

    If you [a Christian] found yourself on Judgement Day standing next to an unbeliever you cared for and liked and Jesus offered to either annihilate you both or send you to heaven and your friend to hell for eternity, which would you choose and why?

    What if the other person was a child?

    Luke 17:1-2 (NRSV)1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come! 2 It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  • There are three possibilities. A) God is the worst monster in all of literature. He actually gets his jollies from watching people suffer. B) This is actually a test to see who will follow such a sick plan and its actually those people who are excluded from Heaven. Why would god want to hang out with people who are that screwed up? Or C) It’s ALL bullshit!
    I’m going with C myself. So if its B I’ve still chosen correctly. And if its A I’ve still chosen correctly because I wouldn’t want anything to do with such a being.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      And B is still pretty much a monster, he’s seen the results of his test and hasn’t called the whole thing off.

  • Giauz Ragnarock

    Jack is best sandwatchmonger!

    https://i.redd.it/z7zupw1d2zb11.jpg

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      The preferred Sandwich is the sacred Meatball Sub.
      Provolone cheese

      • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

        I got experimental at Subway once. Turns out I love spinach, black olives, banana peppers, tomatoes, and some kind of dressing on everything. I’d recommend that at least to try once and basically any “exotic” hot dogs (I LOVE PINK’S AT CEDAR POINT!).

        • Greg G.

          I was craving kielbasa and sauerkraut but spicier, like a Bahama Mama. All I had in the house were some fresh buns, some Oscar Mayer wieners, and spicy kim chi. It worked! It was like a Seoul Train.