To be furious you have to be unhappy (of course) but more important you have to be surprised. There is some logic (not much) in the reasoning that an omniscient god might create imperfect beings as an experiment, to have someone to indulge with his love, or as a simple amusement. But him, being omniscient, would know that they would eat the forbidden fruit, kill siblings, even work on Saturdays. He would have been sad (or maybe indifferent) when he knew what free will would bring, but he would have acted accordingly, either not creating us or expecting the outcome since before the Creation.

If God was not surprised by all of these infractions committed by humans, he would not have been angry. He could have thrown the whole experiment to the garbage bin, or could have repeated it with better temptation control, or could have decided that it was not worth the trouble and let it develop on its own. But I cannot find a scenario where he would continue caring, helping out, admonishing, punishing, and in the end, getting angry again and again.

In a word, bull’.

There are no “Objective moral values”..i.e..values of ethics, that are applicable 100% of the time, whether in the Body of Christ, or anywhere else.

Take, “Thou shalt not kill”, for instance. Is it *always* immoral(”wrong”) to kill? No, of course it isn’t. Even for the “Christian”, their biblegod is (seemingly) content with leaving it up to its creation – who, BTW, are deemed incapable of knowing “right” from “wrong” on their own – to *interpret* or assess any given situation, and act accordingly. For example, if a madman came waltzing into a restaurant and started waving a gun around asking for people’s wallets, etc, it would be perfectly “moral” for a patron who happened to be an off-duty police officer to pull out his or her service revolver and kill that man DEAD.

Moreover, if/when a “Christian” argues in favor of a “Sovereign God”, then they are essentially living by a standard that says “anything goes”(just as they assert the Atheist can live by such a standard). Why?…..because if the judgement of “God” is intrinsically “good”, then God could decide one day that all non-Christian children should die, and command Christians to kill all non-Christian children.

I’m pretty sure that most professing Christians would out-and-out disobey such a command. So, if you are a “Christian”…why?…WHY would you disobey “God”?

*Please don’t tell me that the deity of the Christian bible would never order such a thing; it commanded the killing of children more than once in the bible.

“You’re hopeless.”

No, that was wrong. I refuse to give up on you, Timothy.

OK, now I’m leaning to the theory you’re a troll, Timothy.

Or are you that obtuse?

“I did not mention Hinduism! or any of their Gods.”

Of course you didn’t; the analogy I presented passed completely by you.

You’re hopeless. And you still haven’t answered my question: if your god told you to kill, would you?

Then you would also cite the enduring legacy of the teaching of Hinduism as proof of the existence of Vishnu and Krishna, and other earthly manifestations of the Hindu god.

By the way, I don’t think you’ve answered my question yet: if your god changed the moral rules and commanded you to kill, would you do so?

You seem incapable of addressing that question.

G.A.Wells?

To quote ” Modern critical methods fail to support the Christian Myth theory. These positions have been annihilated by the best scholars because the critics have not succeeded in disposing of much stronger indeed abundant, evidence to the contrary.

G.A. Wells basically proposes that the stories of Jesus originated some 70 years after his crucifiction, if he in fact existed at all, and that he had exhibited limited influence during the course of his life. Stories expounding on the works of his life should not be considered because actual persons who would have been able to offer 1st person accounts.

Without going into great detail about the timing of the authorship of the gospels and personal references Paul makes in his epistles, having the potential then for first hand accounts. The book of Acts , an early history of the formation of the Church, depicting Peter and Paul’s travels , the martyr’s deaths of Stephen and James ends without detailing Paul or Peters death around 64 A.d. Nor does in mention the Jewish revolt which occured in Jerasalem around 65A.D. Historical conclusion, Acts was written around 60AD.Prior to the revolt in Jerasalem. Acts was written after Luke and Luke was written after Mathew and Mark but all within approx 30 years of the crucifiction

Aside from gospel accounts they are a few non biblical sources, including oral traditions and liturgy which became ceremonial aspects of the worship soon after the crucifiction.

The Historian Josephus in his work of antiquities cites Jesus twice.( It is widely accepted that a later addition to Joesephus’ works is of Christian origin a forger so to speak) Historians do conclude that a portion of the writing still refers to Jesus however.

Tacitus writes of Jesus as do Polycarp and Thalus . There is also a fairly dispicable reference to how Jesus may be spending enternity, I believe in the Jewish Talmud.

I would cite the enduring legacy of Christ teachings as proof of his existence as I would of Budda , Mohammed, Confucious.

“I say Christ would have had to be one of 4 potential persons; Legend, Lunatic, Liar or Lord.”

No, you don’t say it, you parrot it. Yes, these are the thoughts of deluded folk who have come up with the same argument long before you took it up.

There never was Jesus Christ, Timothy. Hence he was neither legend, lunatic, liar or lord. But because you are unable to admit the lack of evidence for Christ, because you implicitly believe he existed, you make your claim about what kind of person he was, when in fact, he never was.

“The evidence, you contend does not exist, has some how managed to weave it’s way into the fabric of an influential worldwide philosophy. Would you not consider that evidence?”

That is not evidence. Come up with some. You’ve admitted you’re no scholar, but don’t make an assertion if you can’t back it up. I could say as you have that there is evidence for Allah or Santa Claus because people believe in them.

“Possibly the most written about and thoroughly examined legend or, real life figure for that matter, in the history of the world.”

You have no knowledge that this is true. And if true, it wouldn’t mean Jesus is anything more than the figment of the imagination that he is.

“That you have accepted the premise Jesus never existed must mean you possess knowledge and proof,”

I accept nothing – you are the one claiming knowledge of Christ’s existence. The burden of proof lies with you, then, and you’ve utterly failed to substantiate your claim. If you admitted to me that you’re having sex with a lovely, but invisible pink elephant, would it be up to me to disprove it? Or up to you to prove it to your psychiatrist who had you locked up in a mental ward?

Do you think there are invisible pink elephants? Of course not. Just as I don’t think there is an invisible and absurd god floating above us.

“There is a dimension to the words of scripture, when read on subsequent occasions offers greater insight to an authors message.”

The message may have more meaning for you, but it will be just as absurd. In your delusional state, you’re unable to comprehend that.

“one of us is right but we can’t both be right”

Correct – you’re wrong. Zombies – the dead – did not walk the streets of Jerusalem, as proclaimed by the Bible, after the death of Christ. This is especially true, because there was never a Christ.

You claim to have a different translation of the Bible than I do. Pray tell, what is that verson – and you may explain why it is in conflict with all the other many versions of the Bible that make very clear that the dead roamed the streets of Jerusalem.

Here’s the King James version:

“Mat 27-52: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose”

You wrote: “I enjoy learning from people ”

I don’t think you do. You’re only here to test your mettle against the unbelievers. You’ve offered nothing, and you’ve gained nothing.

In what way? There were a number of apocalyptic teachers wandering the countryside during the period when Jesus is supposed to have lived. Yeshua was a very common name. When you say bit of a stretch, do you actually mean something? Or are you just ignorant of the historical period in which these events are supposed to have taken place?

“were the words attributed to him and the actions attributed to him blown out of proportion making him into a legend then?”

Perfectly real people get nonsense attributed to them all the time. Ever heard of George Washington’s cherry tree?