From the `I have a better idea' file...
"The Devil should make an appearance. Has the Devil done any personal appearances at the local shopping (sic) maul so we can see for ourselves?"
The greatest trick Satan did was to convince people he didn't exist.
"There should be a book with one line for each religion."
How about this one? "God created the world. Jesus, his son, died for our sins, and came back to life, and lives forever, to give us eternal life."
"There should be a book containing the family trees from every known religion."
When you talk about a "family tree" of religion, you're talking about evolution of religion and Joseph Campbell's monomyth idea. "Let's see...it all came out of this religion, and evolved over time, and here's a giant jump here, this ancient Chinese religion here, which in turn evolved into Christianity. How interesting." Sorry. I just find the whole idea detestable. It's something the antichrist would come up with, I feel, to lure Christians away from the faith.
"Everyone wants to be Jesus' friend. Can't they see that it's like befriending a movie star?"
You're used to seeing movie stars on tv, you think they're wonderful and you think you know everything about them, but then you meet them in person and they've never seen you before in their life, and they treat you like slime. Maybe you think God's like that. You hear so much about Him, but you're afraid that God will just brush you off like an insect. I believe that's a silly fear. Jesus forgives you for everything you've ever done. If you believe in Jesus, you're the "movie star's" best friend.
As a father pities his children, so the Lord pities those who fear Him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust(Psalm 103:13-14)."
"God isn't loving."
And what is your definition of love? You can argue against God being loving, and ask why God isn't loving, but you need to explain what love is first. This is an example of God's love for human beings, and you specifically: he sent his son Jesus to die for you, that you will not go to hell, but live forever(John 3:16).
"How can your relationship with the ultimate creator be the same as an interpersonal relationship? Shouldn't you be careful in thought word and deed? He is the creator of the universe."
Read Psalm 103:17-18. If we are righteous through Christ, then it can be a close relationship. God can read minds, so if we think something bad about Him, he knows already. It's okay to express your feelings to Him. Admittedly, there's a difference between anger (expressing upset, etc.) and full blown hatred (like cussing someone out), but God will forgive you, regardless. If you don't share your emotions with God, your relationship with Him becomes stilted and undynamic and boring...more like what you think heaven and church is like, instead of the dynamic relationship it is. For some reason, you have picked up on the confessional from church without picking up the absolution.
Confession: "We confess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. We have sinned against you in thought, word and deed, by what we have done, and by what we have left undone. We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves, we have not loved you with our whole heart. We justly deserve your present and eternal punishment. For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your holy name."
Absolution (pay attention now!): "Almighty God in his mercy has given his son to die for us and, for his sake, forgives us all our sins. I therefore declare to you the entire forgiveness of all your sins, in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
"You obviously don't understand God, or else you would be afraid of Him!"
I do fear God. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. However, the New Testament says "perfect love casts out fear." And Jesus displayed perfect love in his sacrifice for me and humanity and, well, I love my parents. I do my chores to the best of my ablilities, I love and respect my parents, I used to fight them and yell at them or ignore them. I have a similar relationship with God. When I fight God or yell at God or ignore God, naturally I sin. God has human emotions, so basically when I sin, I'm hurting God's feelings. But he still loves me and I still love Him. Some years ago, I didn't have that same kind of love. I didn't act that loving to my parents, either. I think God's recreating me. But anyways, all this stuff where I'm talking about yelling at God and stuff, that's based on what I saw in the movie, "The Apostle." It's the story of this kooky Baptist minister(unless I got the name mixed up). I think it was in theaters a day, then went direct to video. But it's a good portrayal of what I think an average Christian's life is like. I highly recommend it. But, basically, because God sees Jesus in human beings now, he doesn't punish people as brutally as he did in the Old Testament. Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice, to appease God's anger. So his wrathful side is now replaced with love for his son. Every Christian is a son or a daughter of God, because through belief in Jesus we are sons and daughters of God, and God loves His children. So that's how he changed from being a terrifying, vengeful God to a grandfatherly type.
"(Between man and God) There can be no friendship across such an unimaginable gulf of power and intellect - and unknown motives."
Who says there can be no friendship across it? Doesn't Jesus count for something? If you believe the bible, you believe that it shows God's motives. God loves, cares, and is jealous. Jesus stands in the gulf, allowing us to be friends with the unimaginably powerful and intelligent God.
"Every `believer' seems to think nothing of this - though it is far more dangerous than calling the lightning a good friend and wanting to hug it!...Sure. He just likes to sit on the porch smoking a corncob pipe like a kindly old Grandpaw. Maybe he likes to whittle too."
In the Old Testament, yes, God was terrifying. This is why nobody saw him. He spoke infrequently (except through the human beings you love to hate) because it scared the people. A terrifying, terrifying God. But, according to John 1, we see God in Jesus, so through Jesus, and in Jesus, God becomes more of a loving, caring God. Those who believe in Jesus are made perfect through Jesus, so there is no condemnation, no threat from God, no matter how dangerous He is. We're on his good side. We plead with this `scary', `horrifying' God by saying "for the sake of your beloved Son, Jesus." Jesus lovingly called God his father. With Jesus, we have confidence to do the same, and see God as the kindly, grandfatherly type. You are forgiven, so you're not on God's bad side anymore. My pastor says he doesn't believe in Hell. Why? Because, for the believer, there is no hell. We are saved through Christ. Romans 5 explains why a wrathful, all powerful God can also be loving like a `grandpaw.'
"What puzzles me...is the utterly astonishing desire to become acquainted with, or even friends with, such `creatures' as can create everything that exists - and destroy just as easily! There cannot be a more dangerous thing to do!"
You fear God because you have guilt issues. If you want to be rescued from death, if you want to overcome death, if you want your immortal soul to at least avoid the second death, you have to at least beg God for such things. If you are God's enemy, then God is scary. If you are saved and made perfect through Christ, you have nothing to fear from God, because you're on God's good side. Before Jesus, unless you were a perfect person, sacrifices were the only thing you could use to get on God's good side.
"There should be only two religions. The Real True One Religion, and the convincing but fake one inspired by the Devil. Choose A or B. Only two. Not 200...two! `Why?' Again you (don't ask or) wonder?'...if God and the Devil were `obvious', theirs would be the only two approaches. That there are so many beliefs should indicate something! Your religion isn't even particularly powerful and effective or there wouldn't be thousands of other religions."
See above. You ascribe to Satan too much power and cleverness. From the start, the battle has been heavily weighted on God's side. There are numerous uninteresting TV shows where the bad guys are too busy fighting amongst themselves to do any real damage to the ridiculously invincible hero. This is the conflict between Satan and God. God never has and never will be truly threatened by Satan. Satan is an ant, and his minions fight amongst themselves. I believe God is on my side, through Christ, and so Satan isn't a threat. Besides, the way I see it, there ARE only two religions. The Judeo-Christian religion, and the non-Judeo-Christian religion. A Moslem is non-Judeo-Christian.
"`God doesn't make false religions? Man and demons do?' If so, why does God not tell us so? Why let man and demons have their way, ruining millions of lives, and corrupting their souls?"
Not to be confused with the alleged `contradictions' of the bible, these are actual critiques, as in `I have a better idea.'
"I'm sure God would have made Moses understand what an amino acid was. The fact that the bible isn't more scientific means that it's not real."
Circularity of this argument aside, yes, God can do anything. But there would have been no purpose in teaching Moses all that scientific information, even if it did make creation seem more plausible. The bible is about the `why,' not so much the `what.'
"Why didn't God just write the bible himself?"
He did that. He wrote on the tablets at Mt. Sinai. But then Moses broke them on the foot of the mountain because people were worshipping idols. And then God dictated the second message. Well, I don't know why the bible just didn't fall out of the sky from God's hand, fully written. But I don't question why God did it that way. It's a letter from God.
"The proverb says, `...if you seek to get rich, you will lose your good name.' But poor folks dont run businesses nor create jobs. They dont have anything with which to fund philanthropic trusts. As for the `good name', even the robber barons of old managed to buy a good legacy if they hired a smart publicist in their declining years. And then there are such beloved famous people such as Arafat (a murderous billionare), Stalin (just murderous), and others. Control publicity and you control your `name'. The Proverb is nice advice, but the world doesnt work that way."
It depends on what you call `good.' I don't consider your examples examples of a `good name.'
"The Koran and the bible are secondhand information. If God really existed, he'd give us that information Himself directly instead of giving it to dishonest human beings to misrepresent and edit it."
If there's a God, then if God chooses to pass a message along through his creations, it doesn't take away from his godness to do so. Neither does it mean the recipient is an editor. The people who wrote down the material of the bible were mere letter carriers. The fact that there are alleged contradictions in the bible indicates that it wasn't tampered with. If what has happened with the Quran had happened with the Torah and the New Testament, we wouldn't have contradictions. Moslems destroyed the variant copies of the Quran. Unlike bibles, their text offers no alternate translations, implying that the book is error proof. With the bible, we had centuries to iron out those problems, but nobody ever messed with them enough to have them fixed. Or else people would accuse us of collusion and editing the facts to suit wishful thinking. Another thing. The sources, the writing styles, and the authors vary widely, yet each chapter of the bible has a unifying theme to it. The Old Testament promotes the concept of the Jewish messiah, and obedience to God's law. The New Testament shows how Jesus fulfilled the messianic concept and obeyed the law, and how salvation comes from Christ. God works through bible translators so that they don't make gross errors when translating, so it comes directly from God.
"I don't see why I should believe what the bible says. There are books missing from the canon that should be there, but Christians have suppressed that information."
Another presumption based on the DaVinci code. I talked about the alleged `missing book' problem in another section. While there are many stories that don't make it in the canon, that is because those stories haven't exhibited this theme. They haven't been suppressed. They've just been put in the apocrypha, and they're often not very good. One apocryphal work is about a dragon, and it doesn't reflect any message of the canon, except in the vaguest sense. The same goes for the stories of such things as the swaddling cloth and the circumcised piece of flesh from Jesus. There just isn't the same statement of faith and salvation in them. The apocryphal works don't really state anything important. A lot of them don't have that much dialogue at all, or at least not much substantive dialogue. Another problem with them is that their accuracy was found to be questionable, that there are temporal inconsistencies, that the stories were written far later than the rest of the gospels, and that there are giant holes in the story that make them less than a credible addition to the canon. A good example is Maccabees. Jewish people celebrate Hannukah based on the account of Maccabees, but Hannukah is considered a lesser holiday. Passover and some other ones are given heavier credence. I discussed maccabees with someone at Jews for Jesus and they told me that the historical accuracy of the account of maccabees is dubious, that a person really can't argue compellingly from it the way they can the other biblical works. Even non-Christian Jews are skeptical of Maccabees, and that's saying a lot. New Testament books are chosen because they correspond with the laws and prophecies of the Torah. Books were omitted to eliminate `fluff.' An example of `fluff' is the gospel of Barnabas, which really isn't a gospel at all, even though Moslems say it is. Moslems and the author of the DaVinci code say Christians omitted it from the bible or ignored it, but as you read it, you'll see how filled with errors it truly is. "[Jesus, in recounting the story of Adam, says,] `Adam, having sprung upon his feet, saw in the air a writing that shone like the sun, which said, `There is only one God, and Mohammed is the messenger of God.' Jesus answered `...God, in order that I be not mocked of the demons on the day of Judgement, hath willed that I be mocked of men in this world by the death of Judas, making all men to believe that I died upon the cross. And this mocking shall continue until the advent of Mohammed, the messenger of God, who, when he shall come, shall reveal this deception to those who believe God's law(The Challenge of the Cults, Rhodes[or possibly Witnessing to Moslems about Christ, Saal), p. 271)." Clearly, Mohammed didn't live in the time of Jesus, nor in the time of Adam, so this book doesn't even make sense. ("Duhh...Jesus?...Who's Mohammed?") And it clearly doesn't date from the first century. Even the Qur'an prefers to say that Muhammed is the Holy Spirit(as the New Testament describes the Holy Spirit) instead of editing the bible to say that Jesus or Moses or any biblical person specifically uttered the name of Mohammed. I've read that the `gospel of Barnabas' doesn't even agree with the Qur'an. And parts of it appear to be plaigiarized from earlier books, the author not even having the decency to state the source. ("Then said he who writeth, `Daniel the prophet, describing the history of the kings of Israel and their tyrants, writeth thus: `The king of Israel joined himself with the kings of Judah to fight against the sons of belial(that is, reprobates) who were the ammonites(Ibid, p. 207).'") But pseudo gospels with errors similar to these have appeared as apocryphal works. The writings of Josephus and others are on a different plane of apocryphality. They are not included in the bible because the authors probably did not believe the same things, but their accounts are historically verifiable, and they often support what is written in the bible. They're not in the bible because they do nothing to help your spiritual walk with God, but you can still read them. A person like Josephus more than likely would be able to describe the life and death of Jesus, and the influence of miracles on the crowds of his day and age, but it would not be canonized because(I'm assuming) they would not communicate the concept of God and the miracles that the Torah and the gospels communicate. It would be like adding a religious article from Carl `Satan' to a book of essays from an evangelical theological seminary. Oil and water don't mix. It would be self defeating. However, the material isn't suppressed. Many Christian ministers have books of Josephus and the like, and it supports the accuracy of the bible. Revelation of the truth of the bible can sometimes come from secular sources. The atheist I corresponded to provided some very interesting insights into Christianity that I probably couldn't get from a believer, and it has actually strengthened my faith. But I certainly wouldn't canonize his writings. The same is true for authors similar to Josephus.
"The editors of the bible omitted several books from the canon because it would destroy Christianity as we know it."
Certainly not! Check out the link above for more on the so-called `DaVinci Code conspiracies.' If new, accurate books were discovered, it would strengthen, not destroy the faith. Although I don't agree with your arguments that the bible is made up, I do agree with the idea that people, perhaps undeservedly so, have not presented all the accounts of the New and Old Testaments. But that's not an omission. That's just a simple problem of archeologists being unable to uncover new books of the bible, because they've been lost to history. But I think if any new substantiated accounts came to the surface, it would strengthen, not weaken Christianity.
"`We can do all things through Christ?' Like what? don't you realize how much that statement seems like the `magical powers' rot spouted by believers in the occult?"
Oh yeah? If that's true, then why haven't you met any Nephilim (half angel, half human hybrids)? In fact, how do you know that God didn't improve things by making the great flood? Were you there before the flood? Are you actually able to compare the sin and evil of that generation to our present one? Can you prove that things were not improved by that flood?
"I don't believe in Christianity because the sins of the father shouldn't be visited upon the son. I don't want that responsibility."
Writers of the New Testament advocated celibacy. If more people were `married to God' in this way, there'd be less overpopulation. Overpopulation is a good thing, since mankind will hardly become extinct with so much offspring. Unless you hate what and who you are. Also, `Be fruitful and multiply' is an Old Testament mandate, like the commandment not to eat pork or shellfish. Jesus says those are human laws, not God's, so the `be fruitful and multiply' is replaced by Paul's letters that say, `If possible to do so without sin, do not marry.' The way I see it, it's not so much a problem of the earth being overpopulated, it's a matter of people refusing to go cities, countries and states that are less crowded. Another thing I wonder is if you ascribe to the Malthusian theory.
"The fact that God allows people to die won't address the basic problem of their being too many humans. Fruitflies live 2 weeks, but they still multiply like flies!"
And what are you exactly? And apostles like St. Paul and others advocated celibacy, which means we don't need to contribute to the overpopulation problem.
"One billion would be plenty, and that any philosophy or religion with a `be fruitful and multiply' platform, will eventually make everyone walk the plank. Replacement is enough."
The New Testament authors advocate celibacy, so that's not a problem with the religion.
"God should give us sufficient intelligence (or even a subtle Godly nudge) to quit screwing around when the population approaches the point where other species are being decimated and resources are being used too quickly and wastefully."
The New Testament teaches us celibacy. But it's my belief that, if it wasn't for sin, the population of the earth wouldn't be so overwhelming. If partners remained married and didn't have sex outside wedlock, the population would have never boomed like it has. In James A. Mitchner's
"Hawaii" is a character that practically sleeps with every woman on the island. His family tree is the biggest on the island. I don't doubt people like that really exist. They spread their `seed' to the four winds. It's no wonder overpopulation happens. God has nudged humanity with the bible. He's made the contents of the bible unavoidable. And, in regards to nature, the Godly nudge may also be "abuse it and lose it."
Although St. Paul writes that we should not seek marriage, that we should strive to please God first, he doesn't condemn the practice of marriage, and vicariously, sex.
See the Christianthinktank.com article at the table of contents for more information. Adam wasn't the only person responsible for the evil that exists in the world today. I believe Adam had a million chances at this temptation, and resisted it several times before finally succombing to the temptation. But only because the serpent enticed him to disobey God. I think he had more choices than we realize. I don't think he was so bored in Eden that he had nothing better to think about than the forbidden fruit.
"I shouldn't go political on you, but that parable of the late-arrival field workers who were paid the same as those who worked all day, bugs the same way the above does. Is a person's life (as expressed in hours of work for someone else) worth something or not? The parable says no! All the workers were doing the same type of work, but those who showed up early and worked all day received the same pay as those who lazily moseyed to the field hours later. Nuts to that socialistic exploitation! Everyone gets a limited lifetime, and should be paid by the hour given up to someone else's enterprise (adjusted only for the difficulty of it)."
I say that if the pay's good enough (a million dollars an hour, perhaps), who cares if you're all getting paid the same?
"In the book of Job, Job complains to God about his torment, and God merely says `Who are you to question my will?' I find that horribly unsatisfying."
I imagine Job felt the same way. But God's reply means that since God made us, we have no right to critique him. Just because something `isn't satisfying' doesn't mean it's not true. I find it unsatisfying that you can die from falling off a skyscraper. Does that mean that I can just choose not to believe it and jump (without a cord or parachute) anyway?
"`Whenever 2 or more are gathered in my name...' So, when you are alone in your room thinking about Jesus...he can ignore you. God is even more important than Jesus, so private prayer has less chance. I've said this all along, but the quotation `proves' it. Note that I'm not saying prayer is useless - just that no one besides the prayer is listening to the prayer."
No, that's more of an issue about getting together with other believers. God says in the book of Genesis that it is not good for man to be alone(hence the creation of woman). God still listens to the individual person. 2 Corinthians 6:1-2, Psalm 4:2-4, 55:16-17,22, 139, 14:2, 37:4, 33:15.
"144,000 people? So many! I thought `The 700 Club' religion believe only that many would be saved."
Well that's the 700 club. The number 144,000 symbolizes perfection. It's divisible by twelves (twelve disciples). It's not really meant to be taken literally. It's stupid to measure and cap congregation attendance at 144,000, and it misleads people into thinking that heaven will have a tiny population in it.
Here the atheist or agnostic actually critiques God, his creator, explaining why God is doing "such a bad job" that He "doesn't deserve their respect." While on one hand, they will say, "I can't even balance a checkbook, let alone run a planet," they still insist on telling everyone what they would do if they were God, brainstorming about alleged faults of God's character. He should really take Romans 9:19-26 to heart.
"We're an inferior design. I'd expect more from God."
It depends on what you call "inferior" or "bad." I mean, what would be a "good" design? I personally see human bodies as either a reflection of God's image or the image of God's word. The fact that human bodies "work at all" is a compelling enough reason to make me think that our bodies are "good" designs. There's a bible verse that says, "What right does the clay have to say to the sculpter, `why have you crafted me thus?'" In other words, humans have no right to critique God's handiwork. I'd also like to say that I believe God's glory shows through in our weaknesses, not our strengths(beauty, intelligence, charm or physical strength).
"I think God's present worship requirement is proof of imperfection."
That's where grace comes into play. You don't need to worship God or even be thankful to Him. He has given Jesus, which pays for all our sins and transgressions and disobedience, etc. We are not required to lift a finger for God if we don't want to. But out of our love for God, and out of thankfulness, we praise and worship God.
"Acclaim from God's toys can't mean anything worthwhile (let alone enduring billions of worship programs for millenia!) Would your ego be pumped up by a room full of praiseful Furbys? That is why I think either the worship requirement is wrong, or God is imperfect for wanting it."
That's why we praise and worship God out of thanksgiving and love, not out of his commanding us to. We have grace to fall back on. Indeed, God doesn't need us to worship him. I know it `pleases' Him, but he doesn't need it. God can feed himself and take care of himself. But I think God gets some kind of enjoyment out of our worship anyway.
"Why did God choose a pathetic little tiny desert tribe to do his work?"
Read Psalm 105. God chose the "tiny little desert tribe," but that "tiny little desert tribe" was to be a light to all nations, so they all could be saved. That's what the menorah is about. Pre-Jesus, of course. The Jews still are a light to the nations if they believe in Jesus as the messiah. God chooses nerds, the weak, the wimpy, to shame those that aren't. God can deputize you, me, anyone.
God chose the obscure nation to shame the big, powerful nations. That's what the story of David and Goliath is about. God was on the side of the tiny, puny David, not the big, strong, muscular Goliath. That's why also Jesus was born in a nasty old cave instead of in a royal palace. "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are(1 Corinthians 1:27)."
"If God exists, why can't we know everything there is to know about Him? He is God, after all."
That implies that your head wouldn't explode from the mass of information. Besides, why can I not tell you all the answers? Why can't I tell you why hell exists? Because "`Knowledge' puffs up, but love builds up(1 Corinthians 8:1)." Or in the words of the Beatles, "All you need is love, love is all you need." If I could tell you every answer to every question you have about God, I'd be "puffed up," with knowledge and I wouldn't care about you. Then I could truly say, "I'm right and you're wrong" and be correct, so then, well, I just wouldn't be very nice to you. I wouldn't be trying to show brotherly affection for you because I'd be in the position of "you don't know anything, but I know everything. You're stupid if you don't listen to me and agree that what I'm saying is right, because God gave me all the answers."
"Organized religion makes no sense to me. No universe - creating - class God would care about such minutia. And if He does, that is so petty as to deserve little respect."
Basically, you're saying that God doesn't know how to juggle! Just because he might divert some of his mind to Christianity doesn't mean it's the only thing He thinks of!
"In Numbers 15:32-33, a man is stoned for picking up sticks on the sabbath. To me, it was petty and cruel for God to command Moses to do that."
"2 Samuel 6 talks about a man who tries to stop the ark of God from falling over, and gets fried for it. To me, that shows exactly how cruel and petty God is."
Actually, God was being pretty fair. He commanded people not to touch the ark. Not even priests could touch it. They had to use special handles and stuff. He had plenty of warning in advance. The Christianthinktank.com article on the contents page goes into better detail than presented here. But, for one thing, it was to teach the people the fear of the Lord. Also, the ark was in no danger of breaking. The man thought he knew better than God. And we don't know much about the guy who got fried anyway. He could have been a real dirt bag anyway. The man didn't trust that God would take care of the ark. He cared more about the ark than God Himself. "He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud; they kept his testimonies, and the statutes that he gave them. O Lord our God, thou didst answer them; thou wast a forgiving God to them, but an avenger of their wrongdoings(Psalm 99:7-8)." The ark was captured quite a few times by various enemy countries, and it destroyed their statues of various gods and killed people, including that man. Anyone who handled the ark of God besides those God assigned to do that job were considered God's enemy, which meant they'd be destroyed. The man who tried to `right-up' the ark was no better than those enemy rulers because of his disobedience. The ark of God isn't a petty thing. It was of supreme importance. It only seems petty to an atheist or agnostic who puts no value in the things of any god. It seems petty to a person who dismisses all the God related commandments as irrelevant. But to a believer, the ark of God is important, and not to be messed with in such a disrespectful manner. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. This man was disobeying God. He didn't trust God enough to let Him take care of the ark Himself, or make Levi take care of it. The man was faithless. He didn't believe God could take care of His own stuff. He was punished for it. This is a prime example of the difference between the wrathful God of the Old Testament and the loving God of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, there was a different criteria for being a child of God. God is wrathful on anyone who is not His child - before Jesus, that is. Levi were made into God's children by appointment and sacrifices, but nobody else was, except through them. So the man, who was not a priest, got fried for it. God only loves his children, so, before Jesus, that man wasn't. But now, with Jesus, we have all become God's children, so God doesn't do that smiting business anymore. People who don't know the difference between Old and New Testament or Old and New Covenant accuse God of being petty. In the Old Testament, God chose the house of Levi to handle the ark of God. No one else was allowed to touch it. God commanded that. Leviticus 9:22-10:4 relates to this, too. Aaron was obeying God by sacrificing, and his sacrifice was consumed, but his sons were trying to do the same, against the directions of God, and were thus destroyed. They were disrespectful to God. But that was pre-Jesus. His favorite, the one he blessed, was the Jewish race, specificially the family of Levi. Other nations are blessed only if they're buddies with the Jews. But in the New Testament, we have Jesus, and he levels the playing field. All people who believe in Jesus become God's favorite people. Jews are still included, but now the whole world is welcomed in to God's favoritism. Just as long as they believe in Jesus. Numbers 16:1-19 is similar to the theme of this incident. If you think this is also unfair, read God's response to people with a similar complaint, found in Numbers 16:36-50. All I can say is, be grateful we're living in the era of Jesus, where that wrath doesn't drop on your head.
"Frying that man for touching the ark was horribly cruel and vindictive, especially since it surely means he went straight to Hell."
See above. Sure, maybe God fried his physical body. But his spirit, I believe Jesus saved the guy's spirit. The bible says that Jesus spared the spirits in prison, which I've heard are those who died before his birth, even thousands of years before it.
"I have never understood why God (or anyone) would want billions of desperate, fawning, favor-seeking groupies!"
God loved us first, by sending his son Jesus, so it is merely reciprocating that love. Read 1 John 4:9-10 and 19. The real question is "why does God love us in the first place?"
"Of course there are things I'd like to change, but I could practice constantly yet never play an instrument well, or draw great stuff, or do mental math, or become (a kangaroo cat) - because reality is remarkably and steadfastly unaffected by wishful thinking. This should show that the design isn't so darned good, even yet!"
The fact that we cannot do everything perfectly proves that we aren't God. I think God did that intentionally. It actually says little about the designership of God, except that He made safeguards for Himself so that His creations couldn't hurt him.
"The fact that God lets faulty human beings(siamese twins, mongoloids, people with weak hearts, arthritic people, etc.) to exist is proof that he is a bad designer."
Who are you to critique God's work? Who are you to say what is and what is not a good human being? Who are you to say that you are the perfect example of a well formed human being and those people aren't? And if you are willing to include yourself in the critique, why do you have such an unhealthy body image? Why would you insult yourself like that? God's creations are perfect and beautiful. The beauty is a heavenly standard of beauty, rather than a comparison to Sports Illustrated swimsuit models and People magazine.
"If God exists, He does humans a disservice by not making it easy for each ignorant little newbie to see and at least begin in the right religion."
I actually don't know if God made us out of boredom or loneliness or just for something to do for the sake of doing it, but if we take the `boredom' explanation, we can't take the `toy' metaphor completely literal. We are certainly not toys in the traditional sense of the word. God is not like the spoiled, rebellious child who throws his toys around the room, or rip off dolls' heads, or break the wheels on all his toy race cars. It would also be erroneous to assume that He is playing G.I. Joe with us. If anything, it's more like Barbie, but a strange version of Barbie where the focus isn't about getting the new playset or doll house, but rather to continue a complicated emotional drama beginning with his first aquisitions thousands of years ago. A `toy owner' so deeply involved with his `play' that he even inhabited the body of one of the dolls, to rescue all the other ones from destruction.
This argument springs from the agnostic's fear of having his own tremendous ego diminished by one greater than him. This is analogous to the insecurity of certain people suffering from obesity. Feeling insecure about themselves, they lash out with the very insult that wounds themselves the most. "You fat cow!" They cry, pointing the finger at a thin person. But four fingers are pointing back at them. So too does the swelled ego inflict the cruelest wound by saying, "You are too egocentric." Regardless, this argument is irrelevant. Louis XIV, while having an ego as large as his country, was no less fearsome for it, no less capable of beheading unruly subjects, no less deserving of respect during his time and era. Since this continues to be the era of God, since God is the God of the living, we still owe Him the greatest respect, ego or no ego. Besides, he set up all the rules for the universe, so this is the one instance where someone is actually justified in having an enourmous ego. Unlike the rest of us, God's ego can go unchecked, because nothing can stop Him from doing what He wants.
Me: "God wants people to be holy, sometimes with the sacrifice of happiness (wealth could possibly make a person happy, but they might love their wealth more than God, so God might make that person lose their wealth.)"
Agnostic: "Then He is rather petty and has an inferiority problem. This sort of behaviour is what I would expect from the Greek or Norse gods, who were volatile, moody, capricious, and vindictive."
When you point your finger... A petty person with an inferiority problem naturally sees himself in God. God doesn't have mood swings, either. He doesn't do things on a whim or flip - flop His moods. Throughout all human history He has been consistent. He always wanted us to love Him with our whole hearts instead of money or golden idols. God is interested in justice, not revenge. That's why He lets the sun rise on the just and the unjust, and why He doesn't strike down Bill Gates. In each human being's life, he steadily wears down their reliance on material wealth, until they find joy and happiness in God alone.
"Any God that would punish me for eternity for holding an opinion He doesn't like, isn't worth much, anyway."
I think God has invisibly tattooed this on your forehead as a testimony against you, and that's why you're still alive. And that's why you're still alive, right now, on earth, and not struck by lightning. And that's why other religions haven't been wiped out yet.
"I'm glad I'm not God. A thousand Djinn, monkey's paw, and Faustian stories illustrate how hard it would be - and those are nothing - simple stuff compared to running the universe! I'd never presume to do that. It is why I usually preceed, or end, my political comments with `good thing I don't have any power.'"
But you talked about how lousy a job God was doing. You said he made inferior designs. How can you be the judge of that?