What tollows is a typical attempt at Christian apologetics. As usual, it’s full of problems; both logical and moral. Let’s have a look at it bit by bit. I will quote parts of the original article (posted on twitter by @faithclubdotnet and retwitted by a number of Christians), followed by my own comments.



Why Christianity Makes Sense

I've heard many people complain,"Christianity makes no sense". They'll then say something in regards to common themes like,"Why did Jesus have to die for me?" or "Why did God kill people when he is supposed to be a good God". To some people, they simply can't piece together why everything had to happen like it did. To make matters worse, the enemy operates on lies, confusion and darkness trying to kindle the idea that,"Christianity makes no sense." There is not much need to worry about the darkness though because light penetrates it and it flees. In this article, I hope to provide light to your way(*v1) such that you might have a clearer notion of why Christianity indeed does make sense.



To start we must look at God's goal. Yes God's ways are above our ways, so it is impossible to understand what God is doing to bring about his goal, but we may know what God wants to do.

PROBLEM NUMBER 1; SPECIAL PLEADING: IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GOD IS DOING TO BRING ABOUT HIS GOAL.

The above is a typical bit of special pleading. Since we can’t understand what God does to bring about His goal, we place God beyond any realm where His actions can be considered, let alone criticised. My advice to the author of the article would be this:

Stop right there, you don’t need to say anything any more. You’ve just made your point. Christianity makes sense because we’re not allowed to question whether it makes sense. It makes sense because God knows what He’s doing and we don’t know what He’s doing and He knows what's best and we don't.

And of course, this isn’t apologetics, folks. This is dodgery. It’s an escape from any need to explain anything. Nothing really new when it comes to religion. After all, religion thrives on JUST THAT.

Let’s go on with the next section of the article....


God's goal is for all beings to live together in love and peace without harming each other. God is love. Because God is love, he wants to exist eternally with us in love. Love can build over time, so the longer you live together with other people, the more you love them, and the more you want to do good with them. Conflict can also build over time, but as we submit to God as ruler over all to judge conflict, we can be happy when he resolve the conflict. Without God to resolve conflict between people, that conflict might build, and love might be lost and hate take up its place. If you had beings hating each other in the new Heaven, it would not be a place without suffering because harboring ill feelings toward another is actually a form of suffering in itself.

RIGHT, so far, we have a completely arbitrary claim that God is love and wants beings to love each other. One might find this difficult to believe, especially given what this God commands these beings to do. Of course, I’m referring to the Old Testament Law, given by God to His people via Moses and other prophets. There are literally hundreds of examples of this. I will quote but a few.

1. God tells us to execute fortunetellers:
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)


2. God tells us to execute kids who swear at their parents:
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)’

3. God tells us to execute daughters of priests (by burning to death!) for fornication:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

4. God tells us to stone girls who turn out not to be virgins on their wedding night:
But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

5. God kills children for the sins of their fathers:
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

The above are just a few examples of the Commands that God has issued in the Old Testament. Some of these are once-off orders (applying in a particular situation only); others constitute what’s known as The Law.

There is a well known Christian objection that The Law no longer applies because Jesus has now redeemed us. That of course is not true. Open your Bible at Matthew 5, have a look at verses 17-19. They go as follows:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Now, most Christians are very familiar with verse 17. Jesus comes to fulfill the law. But they tend to not even notice the following verses. And in those verses, Christ makes it clear that The Law applies TO THE LETTER (to the iota) and WILL APPLY to the letter until the end of the world. What’s more, those who obey it will be higher in Heaven than those who don’t.

What follows from the above is that, according to Matt 5, Christ commands us to continue to apply the old law of the prophets, including the commands in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, directing us to kill naughty kids, stone adulterers and homosexuals and commit war crimes.

There are a number of counter-arguments out there. Eg, one can argue that these laws only apply to the Jews. In that case, ask yourself if you’d feel morally comfortable with the idea of a Jew who stones his naughty son to death. Is this an act that a God WHO IS LOVE would command? Have a think about that. Kids are (and always have been) immature and silly. It’s quite easy for a kids to say a swear word at his parents. It happens all the time and it’s put down to immaturity. Of course, we discipline them for it. But not by DEATH. We love our kids. Does God? Arguably not. You don’t have someone killed for uttering a single word; that’s not love.

Another (rather silly but very common) argument is that the Law was designed for the ancient Jews who couldn’t understand any different. That’s of course intellectual dishonesty. The ancient Jews could understand the command “whip someone” (and for some offences, whipping was the God-given penalty). Therefore, clearly, they could understand a Commandment that would say “whip an adulteress” or “whip a naughty kid”. Killing is not the only thing the ancient Jews understood, you can be sure of that. The question to be asked remains the same: is this treatment consistent with a God who IS LOVE? The answer must be a resounding “NO”.

A further argument I have come across is that these laws were put in place to “set up the stage” for Christ to come. In other words, it was necessary for God to commit (and order) these cruel (and seemingly unjust) acts so that the Jews could make their way into the Holy Land where Jesus could be born. This is of course complete nonsense. An omnipotent God does not need to order a killing of children (for relatively minor and immature “crimes”) in order to lead the Jews into a land of their own. In fact, all God had to do was to create a land and place the Jews there. God could even remove the existing nations from their lands (and move them somewhere else) and bring in the Jews. But no, the omnipotent God who IS LOVE has rather chosen to order the Jews to completely wipe out these other nations. This isn’t consistent with a God who IS LOVE.

Given the way the Old Testamnet God has conveyed Himself, it’s nothing short of ridiculous to claim that he “is love”. This is a hateful, chauvinistic and quite monstrous character; one’s worst nightmare. He has absolutely nothing to do with love.

Of course, all I’ve written above is probably a waste of effort. The author of the original article has already safeguarded his position by that first bit of special pleading. We can’t understand why God does things but God is always right!

Let’s move on with the article.


Many people who have bad theology oftentimes think,"If God can do anything, why didn't he create us in Heaven without suffering to begin with". The quick answer is,"We have free will, and in that free will gives us the ability to disobey God." Look at the Devil and the fallen angels, they were in the original Heaven, but they disobeyed and are being judged now as a result. If we were created in Heaven originally, we might have fallen too. But since we're on Earth, we have the ability to be redeemed through Jesus and enter into the New Heaven. Because God is merciful to us, we are given the opportunity for redemption, so we eventually will live forever without suffering or second death.

ANOTHER paragraph, another bit of nonsense. Above it is claimed that God couldn’t just create people in Heaven because then people could fall. Let’s think about that. Isn’t that what God did in the first place? Well, it wasn’t heaven. It was The Garden. But it was Heaven-like in a way, right? Adam and Eve were to have a perfect and happy existence there until they “fell”.

Let’s move on...it is claimed that humans have free will and that this allows them to disobey God. This is a very common argument used by Christians in an attempt to justify the fact that God didn’t place everyone in Heaven in the first place (often even to justify the existence of earthquakes and diseases, but that’s beside the point here). So, what’s the problem with this? Well, it goes like this:

Once people do go to Heaven, they either have free will or they don’t.

If they do, they can still disobey God in heaven and therefore there’s no reason why we couldn’t be all created in Heaven in the first place, by a God who “IS LOVE”. Now, I anticipate that someone will say “but those who are in heaven do not WANT TO disobey God”. Well, if they don’t want to disobey God, that means that they are incapable of forming an intent to disobey God. And that, in turn, means that, for the purposes of making a decision to sin, they actually lack free will! Hence a God who “IS LOVE” would have created people who DO NOT WANT TO (are incapable of forming the intent) disobey Him and would have put them in Heaven. And if they are capable of forming the intent to disobey God, then it makes no sense to say that they WILL NOT disobey God. And that, in turn, means that Heaven is populated by sinners just like us here on Earth and therefore there’s no reason why God couldn’t put all these sinners in Heaven in the first place.

If, on the other hand, people in Heaven do not have free will (for the purposes of deciding to commit a sin) then there’s no harm at all in having a class of people who lack this type of free will. Again, a God who “IS LOVE” would have just created this type of people and sent them straight to Heaven. God doesn’t consider free will to be of such an importance and the entire “free-will line of apologetics” is flawed to start with.


LET’S move on with the article...


Let us examine this method of redemption and why it makes sense. Jesus lived a life without sin, then died on a cross for our sins, was buried, and rose from death three days later on Easter.

To kick this off, first let us examine a method of living forever that would not make sense. Let us say everyone who died gets to come back to Earth at a certain date, but God was not ruling. Wouldn't the people that warred against each other still hate one another? One man will be like,"You burned my village, killed my relatives and stole all our wealth. I still hate you! And then, the men would attempt to kill one another again." Without the philosophy of forgiveness, there is no way for sinful men to get along together in the coming kingdom.

THE ABOVE is again nonsense. What in the world is a philosophy of forgiveness? God apparently forgives us via Jesus’ death etc... That doesnt’ mean that people all forgive one another. In order for people to forgive one another, they have to have a sense of forgiveness implanted in their own morality. That’s NOT THE CASE where it comes to Christians. Christians are full of hatred. They hate atheists, they hate non-Christians (of other religions), they hate homosexuals. Most Christians (at least in the West) are supporters of the Death Penalty. To top it up, revenge is rife throughout the Old Testament and its Laws. And yes, Jesus did say that these Laws will apply till the end of the world (as outlined above).

Back to the article...

Next let us examine a method of living forever that would not make sense either. As was said earlier in this article, without God to resolve conflict, even people who might love each other at one point may have a falling out and hate each other later. Most of us have seen this in our lifetime. We see a couple who loves each other at one point, but then they're spiteful at the divorce proceedings later. Eternity is a long time, and without forgiveness, even the most loving couples might have a falling out. With God to mediate conflicts though, both parties will be happy at the resolution, so God is needed to resolve conflicts over the long haul for even people who love each other at one point.

AT THIS POINT, one must ask again: do people in Heaven have free will? If they do, there must be conflict. A free person might want to spend a lot of time with someone they really really like (say Jenny). Another person might want to spend a lot of time with the same Jenny. But Jenny happens to really really like only one of these two. She doesn’t want to spend all that much time with the other one. Someone here is going to be unhappy! Are they going to feel “jealousy”? Probably. Where there’s free will, there has to be jealousy. Either that, or people in Heaven are all robots who have to like everyone equally and wanna spend time with everyone equally, all share the same interests etc. What a boring, dull, mundane place that would be. And of course, these robot-like souls would indeed have very very limited free will :)

Back to my main point, if people in Heaven have free will, they can get mad at one another over whatever heavenly issues they have, and they can be put in a situation where forgiveness is required.

It is suggested that God can mediate this process. Sure. And God could still mediate this process if there had been no Jesus, no eternal damnation, no redemption (by innocent sacrifice; in itself a disgusting concept); if God just created everyone in Heaven in the first place, without playing the whole cruel (and illogical, as demonstrated in this post) game.

Moving along....


So we found two things that are required for eternal living in peace and love: Forgiveness and conflict resolution with God as judge.

FINE, let’s assume that’s correct. In fact, any society where there are imperfect beings with free will must require a system of laws that will somehow promote forgiveness and conflict resolution with a “judge”. No problems there. But that’s no justification for God’s actions and commands in the Old Testament. It’s also no justification for God failing to create everyone in Heaven in the first place. After all, even the author of the article has just conceded that eternally living people (presumably those in Heaven) will have conflicts.


Let’s move along now....


How does God earn the right to be judge? God earned the right to be judge because he was tempted and tried in every way a man might be tempted to sin against another man, and to the most extreme, but did not sin.

THE ABOVE is, of course, nonsense. “Sin” means “to disobey God”, by definition. It’s impossible for God to disobey Himself. Therefore, all this talk about God “being tempted and not sinning” is pure bunk. It’s impossible to disobey oneself.

And when it comes to the Temptation of Jesus (which I assume is what the author is referring to), that in itself is comical. Satan promises Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for Jesus following him (Satan). Jesus, of course, resists. Now, either you believe Jesus was an idiot OR Jesus must have known that all these kingdoms don’t even belong to Satan in the first place. Nemo dat quod non habet. If I promised you the Eiffel tower (and trust me, it ain’t mine!) and you rejected the offer, would that really make you a hero? Or just a non-idiot?

And here’s my little suggestion: if anyone deserves to be Judge, it certainly isn’t God. Just look at the Law that this particular God has given us. Here are three (of many many more examples):

a) Punishing 4 generations for the sins of their ancestors. Would any Christian like to put this into our legislation? Would you like to see a criminal law in your country of residence that does that? Do you consider that to be fair judgment? (Deuteronomy 5:9)
b) Punishment for rape. Where the victim of rape is an unpledged virgin, God’s “punishment” for the rapist was to make him pay money to the victim’s father. In exchange for this, the victim must (she gets no say in the matter) marry the rapist. Would you like to see THIS implemented into your legal system? Is this a fair judgment? I hope you have just shuddred and said “NO”. But just in case you didn’t, please ask any rape victim what her thoughts on that are. (Deuteronomy 22:19)
c) Finally, the very idea of Redemption itself is a nice illustration of the sense of justice this “judge” has. God cannot find it in Himself to forgive us our sins (which we commit because of our nature; it’s clearly said in the Bible that every man will sin) unless an innocent victim is killed (Jesus). The letter to Hebrews, 9:22, makes it clear. Without blood there can be no remission (note that we don’t know the author of this letter, although some ascribe it to Paul). Well, that may be fine, even though punitive justice is quite difficult to defend philosophically. But let’s say that there’s a point there. But INNOCENT blood? Would you like to see a judge who finds a man guilty of a crime and punishes another (innocent) man? Would you consider that to be justice?

No, God doesn’t deserve to be a judge. Not the God that the Bible presents us with. God has no idea about what justice means. Well, of course, I’m speaking in metaphor here. The fact is that there is no god. The whole book was written by humans (and mostly not very intelligent humans). That’s why it’s so full of nonsense and cruelty and injustice.

Back to the article.....

Let us say we were all together as mankind after we've been raised from death. We're sitting around and going,"Who deserves to be judge?" A democracy might pick the most famous actor or someone at random. Let us say just for the sake of an argument they picked someone who sinned in their life, for example, me. If I was the judge of all mankind, I would be a hypocrite. A hypocrite has no right to judge, but let us examine why I'd be a hypocrite. One of the sins I have performed was that I have lied in the past. It is a very common sin. Now everyone who has also lied, I must not judge guilty, or I myself am guilty. I can only judge guilty those which have not committed the sins I have done. This means if someone committed genocide and also once lied about his age, I need to either declare this man innocent, or I must be a hypocrite by judging him guilty. If we look through all of mankind, the only man who never sinned ever was Jesus. Jesus has the right to judge any man guilty or innocent without also being a hypocrite in the process. Thankfully he is also forgiving!

ACTUALLY, there’s no reason why a judge must be innocent of absolutely all wrongdoing. What’s more important is that a judge must have a good sense of justice and a very logical way of thinking. This can’t be said about Jesus. If you read the New Testament, you will see that Jesus contradicts himself on countless occasions, so much so that his sanity (or the accuracy of the Gospels) should be questioned. And of course Jesus is God; he’s one with the Father. That being the case, the Father’s twisted sense of justice (as portrayed above; see Old Testament) is shared by the Son. And Matthew 5:17-19 does take matters further. Jesus expressly endorses those barbaric an UNJUST laws as applicable until the end of the world. Interestingly, in doing so, Christ contradicts his own assertions (eg, where he took stance against stoning a man for working on the Sabbath). Of course, all that this means is that Jesus isn’t really sure about his own view of the Law. Or, perhaps more realisticly, Jesus (if he existed, and that is not certain either; but I won’t argue this here) was a dynamic character, just like all other characters (in fiction and non-fiction alike). His views changed over time.

Another problem here is Mark 10:18. In that verse, Jesus says "Why do you call me good? Only God is good". This creates a problem in terms of "oneness" between the Father and the Son. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that the author of the article promotes JESUS (as opposed to God the Father) as the perfect judge, even though Jesus himself has conceded that he's not as good as the Father. Now, surely, you'd want to have a GOOD judge, right? And the "good judge" is the Father, the God of the Old Testament, the one who told the Jews to execute naughty children. In John 14:28, Christ says that the Father is greater than himself (Jesus). Why then would you want Jesus to be the judge as opposed to the Father? Isn't it best to be judged by the GREATEST being? Of course it is.

One way or another, Christ wouldn’t make a good judge. His endorsement of the Old Testament Law as well as his involvement in the barbaric (and completely unjust) act of redemption by scapegoating render him very incapable of performing the task. And on top of that, Christ doesn't consider himself as great as the Father; another reason why Christ shouldn't be the judge. If anything, the Father should be. But we already know about the Father's sense of justice.


Back to the article....


Now why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Well let us say we're raised from the dead sitting in judgment with Jesus as judge. A thief enters into the courtroom, and he stole off someone who lost something precious to him. The accuser of this thief isn't going to let the man be forgiven. And he knows that by declaring judgment on him, he is also sentencing himself to be guilty also. This accuser doesn't care, he just wants to see the thief punished so badly. Now someone needs to pay for the thief's sin for justice to be served here.

NOW THE above is an attempt by the author to address the problem of redemption. Note that this is not a very honest attempt. The author mentions “payment” for the theft. But that was never the case. Jesus didn’t offer to pay anyone anything for any loss. Oh no. So let’s put this in another way. I want all Christian readers to consider the following scenario:

A man breaks into your house and rapes your daughter. He is caught and stands before the Courts. He is found guilty. The punishment (not payment!) is 45 years in prison with hard labour. Another man, innocent one, comes to you and says “please let this person go free, I’ll serve the time for him”. Now ask yourself this question: will you be happy for this to occur? You know the innocent man has done no wrong. Will you forgive the guilty one in exchange for the innocent one doing the time for him? Well, I really do hope you say “no”. Because if your answer is “yes”, then you will agree with the author who attempts to portray victims of crime as blood thirsty thugs who just want to see suffering and they don’t care who is at the receiving end of it.

Even to suggest such a result as fair, just or in any way morally satisfying is a sign of complete moral bankruptcy. Sorry, author, no offnce meant but let’s call a spade a spade here.

Back to the article....


Jesus being the loving being he is, does not want anyone to suffer for their sins. This is why Jesus died for our sins, to take our deserved place at judgment. Jesus could say to the accuser,"If you really must accuse severely to condemn someone else, you yourself cannot escape judgment yourself. A man has been punished to take the place of the the accused, and that man was me."

AND ABOVE we have just another repetition of the “whipping boy” syndrome. Nothing to do with justice. Nothing to do with forgiveness. A God who is prepared to forgive us our sins if an innocent man is killed in horrible suffering might as well forgive them without this suffering. It really is as simple as that. To me (and many will agree) this doesn’t sound like a god at all; it sounds like a twisted myth made up by a primitive ancient tribe. Don’t forget that human sacrifice was quite a widespread idea in the ancient times and the concept coud easily be borrowed from older pagan beliefs. But is it fair? No. Is it just? No. Is it loving? No. If you believe it’s fair, you should support its introduction into today’s justice systems of the world. And why not? I’d be prepared to do 5 years in prison for someone, if they paid me enough money. I’m probably not the only one. So why don’t you lobby your government to allow this, if you think it’s just and appropriate? You won’t because you don’t think so at all. You, just like me (and like any other morally healthy individual) find this to be appalling. The only difference is you feel that you’re not allow to say that outloud. So let me say it for you: APPALLING.


Back to the article.....


Hopefully this is making some sense to you. Jesus earned his right as judge by being sinless. Jesus allows guilty men forgiveness by taking their punishment for them. Matthew 7:1 GNT "Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you," You might find the "judge not lest you be judged" scripture even more intense upon realizing what is happening here. When you condemn another person after they rise from death, you're really condemning Jesus to die on the cross. We're all responsible for Jesus' death on the cross for we all have sinned. But we're not all saying that Jesus is deserving of that punishment. So please... please do not harbor such ill feelings to anyone that you never forgive them. Forgive and love everyone, no matter how evil they are. By all means restrain and imprison a maniac, but also forgive them.

THE ABOVE is again wrong. How in the world are we all responsible for Jesus’ death? First of all, most of us don’t do anything that even deserves a death penalty. And those who do, get...well...sentenced to death (in countries where DP is on the books). How does me telling an occasional lie or masturbating now and again or getting angry at times justify any claim that a man should be put to death? It doesn’t. Don’t kid yourselves.

We do not deserve to be sentenced to death for the puny “sins” that most of us commit. That’s the starting point. A God who “IS LOVE” wouldn’t sentence everyone to death for the silly things we do. And if you disagree then consider killing your child for telling you a lie. Would you? Of course not. Well, it follows that you are more “LOVE” than Yahweh.

But even if we DID deserve to be put to death, killing another (innocent) person for it is no solution. At the time that I tell a little white lie (or think about the neighbour’s wife; and there’s some good thinking involved!), Jesus is already dead. He’s been dead for 2000 years. Me having these naughty thoughts does not cause his death. It’s really as simple as that.

Back to the article.......



If you're following this line of thinking, your very core might be being rocked.

WELL NO. If you’re following this line of thinking then you lack logic and your morality is nothing short of sick.

And back to the article again...



It is scary to think,"If I hate someone who is evil, I'm getting really close to condemning Jesus and myself in the process!" It is scary because it seems so natural to love those who are good and hate those who are evil.

ACTUALLY, you’d have to do a lot of research to support the above. I don’t know how many people HATE those who do evil things. I myself work in the justice system (and have for over 10 years) and I find that people (mostly atheists though, granted) are actually very forgiving. They don’t tend to hate anyone. They do want to see justice done but are usually (not always of course) happy to rely on the courts to do it. I don’t think “hatred” is a very appropriate word here.


Back to the article.....


In Christianity we're called to love all. And I'll explain why this makes sense right now. Let us say someone was fed a bunch of lies, and had all sorts of warped reasons why they committed evil. Then they find Jesus, turn around and do good, rejecting all kinds of evil. Their soul is prepped for eternity to do good and love forever. It was only temporary they were doing evil regardless of how much evil they actually did. If everyone forgives each other for the problems we inflict on each other in this world, and make a pledge to accept Jesus as judge and LORD forever, we can live with peace and love forever. Yes, it is possible for one man to do more evil than another man, but if you look at the long term, it is possible for both men to forgive each other and be at peace. It is even said Isaiah 65:17 GNT The Lord says, "I am making a new earth and new heavens. The events of the past will be completely forgotten.

ACTUALLY we can live in peace and love without accepting Jesus. In fact, it’s probably easier. I find it quite easy and peaceful that I don’t have to be prejudiced against people simply based on their sexual preference or their religion. I’m happy to love everyone equally. And I do. I don’t consider women to be inferior (and both Yahweh and Jesus certainly did; do modern Christians? Can’t see why not) to men.

The only difference is this “forever” bit. But that, of course, is dogma. Christians (and not only) believe in life after death. Atheists generally don’t; and for a good reason as there’s not a shred of credible evidence that anyone survives their own death (it even sounds silly if you think about it). Of course, this goes to a totally different way in which CHRISTIANITY DOESN’T MAKE SENSE: It makes no sense to believe that a god exists at all. This should be the first consideration, even before anyone engages in considering the finer dogma of sin and salvation.

Back to the article (and skipping a paragraph as it doesn’t take matters any further).....


Oh and just a quick response to the notion,"How is God a good God when he has killed many people." : Isn't a doctor with a painful cure better than a doctor without any cure at all? If it had to be done this way to enable us to be able to live forever, isn't some finite suffering less than infinite suffering? If we did not get to go to Heaven and live forever with God, we'd suffer infinitely. Thankfully God succeeded in his plan with Jesus as his cornerstone for the church.

WELL, let’s stop here. What does the author mean by “it had to be done that way”? How in the world did God HAVE TO murder all the Egyptian firstborns in order to achieve the final result? Isn’t God meant to be omnipotent? Heck, given omnipotence, I could come up with a way of achieving the precise same result without killing a single innocent person, without sentencing children to be stoned, without ordering the Jews to commit genocide and war crimes, without having an innocent man crucified.

I think it’s quite rich for you to say “it had to be done that way” without a single word of justification. But I entirely understand why you didn’t provide any. It’s not possible to do. There is no justification of why an omnipotent God HAD TO commit atrocities.

Yes yes, I know. Back to the same mantra at the beginning of the article, right? The special pleading. “We don’t understand why God does what He does”. But again, that’s not an answer; it’s dodgery.

The article continues with two more paragraphs but I will not address them. They are neither here or there.

The bottom line is that Christianity does not make sense. The biblical God is a morally inferior concept. The idea of condemnation, as per the Bible, is morally unjustifiable in reference to a God who “IS LOVE” and the method of redemption involved is one that no serious jurist would ever consider and no honest Christian would want to see implemented in his/her own legal system.

Christianity doesn’t make sense. Christianity is bunk, both morally and logically.

More important, however, is another issue, not even addressed by the article: does religion make sense? Why believe in a god at all?


Love without Christ,

@Allocutus