The Christian concept of Jesus sacrificing himself for humanity’s sins seems logically inconsistent with the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God.

My argument is that if God knowingly created a world in which sin would occur, while possessing the power to determine the conditions of creation, then the necessity of sacrificing his own son to redeem humanity becomes difficult to justify.

Consider the following:

God is omniscient. Before creating humanity, he already knew every sin every human would ever commit. He knew humanity would fall, that suffering would follow, and that redemption would eventually be necessary under the system he established.

God is omnipotent. He possesses the power to create reality and determine its governing conditions. Despite knowing exactly how humanity would behave, he chose to create this world.

God established the moral order. If God is the ultimate source of the laws governing sin, punishment, and redemption, then the requirement for atonement ultimately exists within a system he created or permitted.

Jesus was sacrificed to redeem humanity from sin. But if God knew the problem would exist before creating humanity, and established the conditions under which redemption would be required, then why was such a sacrifice necessary in the first place?

The common response is that God gave humans free will, and therefore humans are responsible for their own sins.
However, I don’t think this fully addresses the problem.

I’m not claiming that God’s foreknowledge necessarily means he directly causes people to sin. Knowing an action will occur is not the same as causing it.

My argument is that God knowingly chose to create a reality in which those actions would occur. Free will may explain why humans choose to sin, but it doesn’t explain why an omnipotent God would need a sacrifice to forgive those sins.

If God could forgive humanity without requiring the suffering and death of Jesus, why didn’t he? And if he couldn’t, what exactly prevents an omnipotent being from doing so?

Furthermore, if the sacrifice was necessary to satisfy God’s own requirements for justice, doesn’t that mean God was satisfying conditions that ultimately originate from himself?

This is the central issue I have with the doctrine. God knowingly creates humanity, knowing every failure that will occur, establishes or permits a system in which those failures require redemption, and then presents the sacrifice of his own son as the solution.

My conclusion is that Jesus’ sacrifice appears unnecessary unless Christians can demonstrate why an omnipotent God could not achieve forgiveness and reconciliation through some other means.

I’m interested in hearing how Christians reconcile God’s foreknowledge, his responsibility as creator, and the supposed necessity of Jesus’ sacrifice without simply appealing to free will.

There is a genetic Adam and Eve but they did not exist together at the same time. Therefore the Catholic Church is wrong.

I've noticed many Atheists and Christian Fundamentalists have this one thing in common. They think Christians who don't believe in the entire Bible are fake Christians, and that one must be a fundamentalist to qualify as a "true" Christian.

I use my concept of natural moral law to analyse the Bible, and that means I throw out all of the immoral things in the Bible (as I don't think they can be from God). I am working on releasing a free online Bible that has none of the immorality in there, along with removing most contradictions of physical law (except some miracles and parables), like the firmament.

When I tell Christian Fundamentalists this, and when I tell atheists this, I will end up getting the same response from many of them, where they tell me I'm not a true follower of Jesus. Because in their minds, the only true Christians are the ones who are Biblical Fundamentalists who follow every jot and tittle of "scripture."

Has anyone else noticed this? It's very interesting.

One point I'd like to add: When I speak of atheists, I'm talking about the ones who are active in their promotion of atheism and activism against religion. There are many atheists that don't fall into this category. Pretty much all Christian Fundamentalists fall into the category of being active in their promotion of Christianity, so I don't really have to make such a distinction for them.

My central claim: Fallen World theodicy offers no criterion for what counts as a consequence of the fall, which makes it unfalsifiable, and which licenses absurd extensions. Even if I were a theist, I would still find it vacuous as it explains everything and nothing at once about how the world is in its current state.

Allow me to give the conclusion that I hope to support: A believer in the Fallen World theodicy can, and perhaps even must, believe that feces smells unpleasant only because sin entered the world. I say this because Fallen World theodicy is the oft used scapegoat to explain all natural suffering like cancer and tsunamis, but the implications of this claim must be grappled with, and would lead to the above conclusion for the believer in question.

Argument 1: Unevidenced and Unfalsifiable

Unless you don't believe in the scientific consensus of an old earth and evolution, the fact is that natural suffering and their causes have been in existence long before humans could ever walk the earth and do whatever it is that caused the fall. Attempts to account for this can go as far as to claim that the world was actually a paradise with no disease or natural disasters, but when humans introduced sin, then the world was retroactively changed by some temporal means to then be full of disease and suffering before humans came about. Of course, this is neither falsifiable nor evidenced in any way whatsoever. It is pure wild speculation at best.

Less popular is the suggestion that it's actually only humans that were immune to disease and natural suffering when they first came about, but when sin came, that's when this immunity vanished. Again, lacking evidence. There is no way to know this is true beyond mere speculation. It suggests that the earliest human ancestors, somewhere within the delineation between homo heidelbergensis and homo sapien, were just immune to disease and natural disasters for some period, and then this immunity ended somehow.

Argument 2: No Epistemic Limits

Christians who abide by the fallen world theodicy will sometimes claim that things like cancer or tsunamis or earthquakes were not meant to be part of our universe. They were not in the initial blueprints of God's design, they say, and they do so despite having no real confirmation of what the pre-Fallen world actually was like. Ideas about the pre-Fallen world are extrapolations at best.

The issue comes about when there is no real epistemic limit to what could ever actually be excused as part of a fallen world. It can be something as terrible as a tsunami that kills thousands, or as small as an itch on the nose. There is no identifiable or consistent mechanism that translates whatever state the universe was in prior to the fall of man to the state it's in now.

Before the fall of man, cancer didn't exist. After it, now it does. How? Did sin introduce carcinogens? What about earthquakes? Were there none before, and now there are? How? Did sin introduce tectonic shifts? Did those not exist before sin entered the world? We don't have any real explanation for how this occurs. All we have is a broad encompassing category of bad things, and they must all not have been bad or not have existed at all before the fall, regardless of how fundamentally different the causes are of each example. Sin just can just cause all manner of reality-bending that introduces suffering into the world, from cancer to plague to dengue fever to predation to parasites to sudden infant death syndrome, etc.

But because there's no epistemic limit to these speculations, we can include even minor inconveniences or limits to human ability, can we not?. Take my earlier example with feces: sure, it has its uses, but it smells unpleasant. Well, if we can just say anything about the Fallen World without needing to back it up, then we can claim that feces actually smelled delightful before the Fall. Hell, why not take it a step further, and say that outright eating feces was nutritious, but sin made it unpleasant and poisonous?

And why stop there? Maybe the unpleasant feeling when a person eats too much food is also a result of the fall. Maybe the fact that we are constrained by gravity is also a result of the fall. Maybe children physically and mentally matured quickly rather than undergo awkward transition periods into adulthood before the fall. Virtually any undesirable or inconvenient aspect of our world can be declared as a consequence of the fall after the fact. Who is the believer to say otherwise, when there is no epistemic standard to deny it with?

Conclusion:

The Fallen Word theodicy, the way it's used so often, recognizes a fact of our world: "There exists natural suffering not caused by human decisions." And in acknowledging this, it tries to answer the question: "How can this happen with a tri-omni god?"

It answers with statements without evidence, blanketly placing any and every kind of natural pain or inconvenience into one whole category, and putting it squarely on the shoulders of humans rather than on the all-knowing designer. It is a means of salvaging God's tri-omni properties by asking "How can we explain natural suffering to be NOT the fault of the all-knowing and all-powerful designer of the universe?" There is no limit to what it can excuse because Fallen World theodicy is clearly not meant to mechanistically explain the state of the world. I'd argue that its purpose is an ad hoc shift of the blame from God to man. This is why I say that the believer must accept the idea that bad smells are a result of the fall, because if they can simply make unevidenced statements as to the pre-fall state, then any claim is as good as any other as long as it falls under the category of naturally occurring unpleasantness. One can claim that God made humans could literally eat poop without a problem prior to the Fall, and the believer in the Fallen World couldn't possibly say otherwise, or else open the door to skepticism and a need for evidence for each claim.

Note: At the least, I can acknowledge that other arguments that explain the state of the world ("God puts these sources of natural suffering as a test", "Natural suffering leads to greater goods", "Natural suffering builds virtues", etc.) avoid the issues I stated to some extent. They at least show that these sources of natural suffering were purpose-built rather than a sudden accidental state inexplicably brought about by human beings.

If god had a creator and that creator wanted god to think he is uncreated, there would be no way for god to know it. The typical answer "god is eternal, therefore he cannot be created" does not really work. If god was created, his creator could very easily give god a false sense of being eternal. Think about it this way: according to Christianity or Islam, god can easily create a human that thinks anything. He could create someone that thinks he is uncreated and everlasting.

A being with infinite knowledge should understand this. It is not normal that an infinitely intelligent god could not understand that they could be fooled by an entity above it. If he cannot understand this, then something is blocking that thought. That "something" is god's creator.

When we talk about first cause (and this is something we don't all agree on), and then jump to the conclusions that God must be the first cause, this is a great leap of faith.

If we agree that there's a first cause, we still haven't established what the first cause is. You need more to attribute something like the self-sufficient, the absolute, the all loving, all-knowing, etc...

You need to go through a lot of arguments and proofs to prove that the first cause is God.

I have read online that the Gospel of Thomas was rejected from the New Testament because it does not place emphasis on Jesus’ death and resurrection, and that the view of Nicean Christianity is that it is through His death and resurrection that we are saved. I’m not completely against Paul but this idea comes from him, not the gospels or Jesus himself. Rather I’d argue that his death and resurrection serves as absolute proof that He is who He says is, and that His message is truth.

Jesus said to believe in Him (to believe in His ways and the knowledge that He’s giving to us), THAT is the key to salvation. Not once in the gospels did Jesus say he specifically came to die for our sins, this is an idea that developed later so why must a gospel contain this element to be considered divinely inspired? Is a collection of Jesus’ sayings not a Gospel—which literally translates to “good news”? Jesus’ mission was never to die for our sins, but it was his destiny to die because of them, as written by the prophet Isaiah.

With the issue of the Gospel being written too late, with no older manuscripts found I cannot go against that in good faith, but little bits of it suggest that it’s potentially from an earlier time. Specially, in saying 27, Jesus states that we must keep the Sabbath as a Sabbath—a day of rest and worship, and If this Gospel was a forgery written in the 2nd century, a time where Christians already switched to Sunday worship, why then would they make up a saying of Jesus preaching to keep the Sabbath (Saturday) as the holy day? Would this not suggest that this was written at a time where Christ’s followers still observed Saturday as the holy day? Which would be within the first 100 years after his crucifixion, when Christianity was still a Jewish sect?

And lastly, this gospel is seen as gnostic and for the life of me I cannot figure out why. Jesus of the canonical gospels very much so preached about self discovery and seeking knowledge of one’s self to find the kingdom, while also proclaiming his divinity and connection to the Father through the Holy Spirit, the Gospel of Thomas says the same thing. The only thing that makes this one different is that it’s not a narrative gospel, it’s purely a gospel compromised of Jesus’ sayings—most of which are already found in the New Testament in some way. The emphasis on Jesus’s death and resurrection was a later addition to the faith, His earliest followers saw it as a tragedy rather than the means to which we are saved.

Trying to understand Christianity here and among the hundreds of ridiculous/evil/plain stupid things in the story of Christianity, this is one of the ones don’t understand the most.

The way it’s been explained to me from many different sources and i guess interpretations—
God purposely created a flawed species, full well knowing that billions would eventually go to hell for exercising their free will in the image of their mind which was hardwired to be flawed and immoral, then is disappointed they did exactly what he knew would happen, therefore he sends them to eternal suffering.

??? Like Is that not just plain evil? The more I hear about god the more it feels like the bible could very well be Satan trying to trick humans. I mean why would a moral god order genocide.

According to the bible im going to hell because I have sinned and don’t accept Jesus as my savour but I’m not a bad person, how is that fair to me? My brain was hardwired and molded into a shape that desired to sin, I’m not saying it isn’t my fault but that’s just how the brain works and he knew that, so why did god make me and billions of others to be extremely flawed and guaranteed to not accept him?

(1) Young Earth Creationist leaders like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind often liked to say, and still often probably do. That accepting an old earth makes a Christian more susceptible to disbelief.

(2) Just search examples and if you've maybe ever heard of anything from young earth creationists becoming old earth Christians, but abandoning young earth behind, and you'll see you won't realistically ever hear if at all, of an old earth in-line with mainstream scientific understanding causing significant faith issues.

(3) This is itself perhaps evidence that young earth creationism is a problem generally towards accepting or rejecting scientific claims, not religion itself or Christianity itself, in my opinion.

(4) If you think religion deconverting or convincing people to become atheists, is what you need to actively encourage or do, please do not attack it generally as it's very multi-faceted.

Preamble:

I have been focusing on what I considered the "foundational story" of Christianity, and I came up with the "Fall" of mankind as it's often called.. the story of Adam and Eve in the garden.

It's not the first story.. there was the creation of the universe before the garden story.

I picked the one that I liked the best.. the one that deeply resonates with most Christians, because without the fall, there would be no need for the crucifixion of Jesus, or his resurrection.. which a lot of Christians tell me is the central story.. the foundational story.

Im going to switch to the crucifixion here..

Today, I'm focusing on Matthew 26:39

“O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

It's clear to me that Jesus would have willed to not be crucified... to not die... but that nevertheless, he chose obedience over his own free will.

He gave up his free will I guess "freely"... ?
Was he free ?

God only knows.
Again, the bible doesn't explain if Jesus had free will nor if his "Father" had any.

In fact, the bible never once mentions the term "free will".

Here is my argument:

P1. Jesus expresses a desire to avoid crucifixion (Matthew 26:39).

P2. Jesus voluntarily submits his will to the Father’s contrary will.

C. Therefore, Jesus chooses obedience over exercising his own free will.

En cualquier lugar —incluso un cementerio o una casa vieja— ocurren ruidos o eventos aleatorios sin explicación inmediata. Si la persona no le da importancia y lo ignora, el evento muere ahí y no sucede nada absolutamente.

​Días después ocurre un segundo ruido o el crujido de un paso. Aquí es donde la persona comete el error crítico: en lugar de descartarlo, le presta atención. Esa fijación mental actúa como la primera gota de sangre en el agua, llamando la atención de entidades que antes no tenían un canal .

A medida que la persona se hipervigila y se enfoca en el fenómeno, la manifestación se agrava. El sonido ya no es un crujido sutil, sino el impacto claro de alguien corriendo en el pasillo. Las señales ya no se sienten como casualidades porque la entidad ha sido atraída deliberadamente por el foco de la persona.

​

Finalmente, el ruido y la presencia se vuelven tan intensos que resulta imposible ignorarlos. Al haber alimentado el fenómeno con atención y miedo constantes durante tanto tiempo, el individuo ha dejado pasar a la entidad, completando la transición de la mera obsesión mental a una apertura espiritual plena donde el depredador toma control.

Esta misma lógica explica por qué, tras ver películas como El Exorcista, tantas personas de repente creen estar poseídas o experimentan fenómenos extraños. No es que la película traiga un demonio adherido a la pantalla; es que la cinta funciona como un interruptor de atención. Siembra la idea en la cabeza del espectador, quien sale del cine con el radar hiperactivado, buscando sombras, analizando cada crujido de su casa y prestando atención a detalles que antes ignoraba por completo. Al enfocar su mente ahí, "echa la sangre al agua" y se hacercan los demonios como tiburones ambrientos sin nesecidad de estar ahi prebiamente.

Lo mismo ocurre con los cementerios. Las peores cosas o las sensaciones más aterradoras no ocurren por el cementerio en sí mismo como espacio físico, sino por la idea que tenemos del lugar. Si lo piensas bien, ¿a qué lugar no ha pisado la muerte a lo largo de los siglos? Prácticamente cualquier terreno del planeta ha sido pisado, habitado y dejado atrás por personas que ya no están; todo el mundo es, en el fondo, un cementerio. La única diferencia es que al cementerio oficial le ponemos la etiqueta del miedo, lo que obliga a nuestro cerebro a encender la alerta, prestar atención a cada detalle y, sin darnos cuenta, abrirle la puerta a la obsesión.

Es mi teoria porque me parece raro creer que estas cosas pasan casi al azar(es como pensar que los demonios tienen una ruleta para decidir quien poseer hoy).Y de hecho defiende la idea original de como es que ocurre la posesió

It baffles me that people fail to realize this simple concept, and here I include faithfuls of any religion as well as atheists*(!).

The simple existence of people living happy and rightful lives under any denomination, atheism included, is to me a proof that Good operates without discrimination, and also that Evil hits everyone equally.

So, how can people say their system is better? Why don’t people realize that God (you can call it life, energy, whatever) is greater than any religion or system of thought trying to describe it.

*I include also atheism because in a way it is also a religion, with its assumptions that work like dogmas (evolutionism, physical laws), its holy figures (Darwin, Freud, Marx) and sort of eschatology (no life after death) and worship rituals.

مسألة العدل الإلهي في الإسلام: الوحي وحرية الضمير وعدم المساواة الدينية

كيف يمكن التوفيق بين الاعتقاد الإسلامي بأن الله عليم بكل شيء، وقادر على كل شيء، ومتصف بالعدل المطلق، وبين الأحكام الدينية والقانونية التي تقضي بمعاملة الناس معاملة مختلفة تبعًا لدينهم ومعتقداتهم؟

وفقًا للعقيدة الإسلامية، أرسل الله أنبياء، منهم إبراهيم وموسى وعيسى، لإبلاغ البشر إرادته. وفي الوقت نفسه، يؤكد الإسلام أن القرآن هو الوحي الأخير، وأن محمدًا هو خاتم الأنبياء.

ومن هنا يبرز السؤال الأول: إذا كان الله يعلم مسبقًا طبيعة البشر والظروف المستقبلية والنتائج المحتملة لوحيه، فلماذا أُبلغت إرادته من خلال أنبياء مختلفين، بينما انتهى الأمر بالبشرية إلى وجود أديان متعددة يدّعي كل منها امتلاك الحقيقة، وكثيرًا ما تتعارض تعاليمها فيما بينها؟ ولماذا لم يكن بإمكان الله، وهو القادر على كل شيء، أن يبيّن إرادته بطريقة تتيح لكل إنسان فرصة عادلة وكافية للتعرّف على الحقيقة؟

وتزداد هذه المسألة تعقيدًا لأن الإنسان لا يختار ظروف ولادته. فقد ينشأ شخص في تقليد مسيحي أو يهودي، ويؤمن بالله بإخلاص، ويصلّي ويحاول أن يعيش حياة أخلاقية، معتقدًا أن دينه هو الدين الحق. ومع ذلك، لا يقرّ الإسلام بصحة جميع معتقدات هذين الدينين، ويدعو إلى قبول وحيه الأخير. فإلى أي مدى يكون من العدل محاسبة الإنسان على معتقداته الدينية، إذا كان الله يعلم البيئة التي وُلد فيها، والفرص التي أُتيحت له للبحث عن الحقيقة؟

أما السؤال الثاني فيتعلق بحكم محدد ورد في القرآن. ففي سورة التوبة، الآية 29، ذُكرت الجزية، وهي ضريبة كانت تُفرض، في إطار الفقه الإسلامي الكلاسيكي، على فئات محددة من غير المسلمين، ومنهم المسيحيون واليهود. وقد أتاح نظام الذمة التاريخي لهم الاحتفاظ بدينهم، لكنه منحهم وضعًا قانونيًا خاصًا ومختلفًا. وبذلك، أثّر الانتماء الديني في الالتزامات المالية والوضع القانوني للإنسان.

وهنا يبرز سؤال جوهري: لماذا ينبغي لشخص يمارس دينه بسلام ولا يرتكب أعمال عنف أن يتحمل عبئًا ماليًا خاصًا بسبب عدم اعتناقه الإسلام؟ وإذا كان الله، وفقًا للعقيدة الإسلامية، قد أرسل أيضًا عيسى وموسى، فلماذا كان ينبغي لأتباع الديانات المرتبطة بهذين النبيين أن يتمتعوا بوضع قانوني مختلف في ظل الحكم الإسلامي؟

إن تفسير الجزية بأنها كانت جزءًا من النظام الاجتماعي السائد في حقبة تاريخية معينة قد يساعد على فهم كيفية عمل هذا النظام، لكنه لا يثبت في حد ذاته عدالته الأخلاقية. وبالمثل، فإن القول إن المسلمين كانت عليهم التزامات مالية أخرى لا يزيل السؤال المتعلق بسبب تحديد فئات مختلفة من المدفوعات والأوضاع القانونية على أساس الانتماء الديني.

أما السؤال الثالث فيتعلق بحرية الضمير. فالقرآن، في سورة البقرة، الآية 256، ينص على أنه «لا إكراه في الدين»، بينما تتضمن سورة التوبة، الآية 29، أمرًا بقتال فئة معينة من أهل الكتاب إلى أن يدفعوا الجزية. وقد وضع الفقهاء المسلمون الكلاسيكيون تفسيرات وطرقًا للتوفيق بين هذين النصين، لكن يبقى السؤال: هل يعني عدم الإكراه مجرد السماح للإنسان بالاحتفاظ بدين آخر ضمن وضع قانوني محدد، أم أنه يقتضي المساواة الدينية والقانونية الكاملة؟

وأخيرًا، تبرز مسألة أخلاقية أوسع نطاقًا: إذا كان الله هو المصدر المطلق للعدل، فما المعيار الذي ينبغي الاستناد إليه لتقييم أحكامه؟ وهل يُعدّ نظامٌ تتفاوت فيه حقوق الأشخاص والتزاماتهم المالية بسبب دينهم، سواء أكان الدين الذي وُلدوا فيه أم الدين الذي اختاروه عن اقتناع، نظامًا عادلًا؟ وإذا كان الجواب هو أن العدل الإلهي يختلف عن التصور البشري للعدل، فكيف يمكن التحقق بصورة مستقلة من أن حكمًا معينًا عادل حقًا، بدلًا من اعتباره عادلًا لمجرد نسبته إلى الله؟

وخلاصة الاعتراض ليست أن وجود أديان متعددة يدحض، في حد ذاته، وجود الله، ولا أن كل مسلم يؤيد عدم المساواة. بل تتمثل في ضرورة تقديم تبرير يوضح كيف يمكن التوفيق بين القول بأن الله عليم بكل شيء، وقادر على كل شيء، ومتصف بالعدل المطلق، وبين تفاوت الظروف التي تتيح للناس البحث عن الحقيقة الدينية، والوضع القانوني الخاص لغير المسلمين، والأحكام التي تثير تساؤلات حول عالمية حرية الضمير.

Spending an eternity being in an golden city constantly worshiping god? That sounds weirdly dystopian like 1984 but big brother calls himself jesus

That sounds sad with not much agency and having barely any independence or even a bit of power unlike on earth

And another thing is it's infinite, it's bound to become boring after a thousand years or maybe even in a hundred, you can't decide to reset or reincarnate

And another thing is it's all glorifying god, I don't think your ever able to do fun not so glorifying god things

And it's also just really God's view of what would be a utopia, people can't personalize it to be what they would see as utopia, god decides that which is unfair, it's like going to an ice cream shop but on the menu everything besides strawberry is scribbled, and the reason is the ice cream man says "you'll like strawberry more than mint chocolate chip or chocolate or vanilla or anything else", some people like strawberry but some people don't

And also, happiness exists cause there's sadness, I dunno how to say it like I am wise but, without sadness, happiness isn't as glorious

So The heaven most of you believe sounds almost as depressing as being in hell

Edit: forgot to summerize it, imo as an agnostic, for heaven to be truly fun it shouldn't just be glorifying god and be more of like personalized utopias for one or more people and if you ever get bored you can reincarnate or reset

I grew up in a Muslim family and although I am not Muslim anymore I definitely believe in God. I don’t understand how people can say that Christianity and Islam brought rights to the underprivileged at their time with such pride while being misogynistic and homophobic. I used to believe the “love the sinner hate the sin” mindset but that is some bs. You either want someone to be free in their life or you don’t. How can one person believe their way of living or their sexuality is better than any other? No human is better than anyone. I also don’t understand how keeping women in the house and modest helps society progress now. These religions are not as progressive as they once were and if you believe them still you cannot be progressive.

What the world calls Christianity today is not the path of Christ. It is the ghost of the Roman Empire wrapped in a cross—a culture that claims to have killed the man, yet turned their murder weapon into his ultimate symbol. The story of Christ must be read like any mythic scripture of antiquity: a map of archetypes, the collective conscious, and the collective unconscious. The Romans recognized the existential threat this inner message posed to their authority, so they co-opted the narrative and redistributed it to the masses as an instrument of state control. The real tragedy of modern religion is that it copied the Roman playbook. Instead of offering the inner, spiritual transformation Jesus actually taught, institutions adopted Rome’s hunger for power, money, and compliance. Rome did not perish; it merely survived every time an institution turned the Divine into a business, replaced inner awakening with blind obedience, and built a modern empire beneath the shadow of a cross

Or rather, he knew billions wouldn’t and doesn’t care? Im not really sure what to call it but
the strong points of my argument are this:

1: The bible sucks: The bible not only is wildly inconsistent, full of mistakes and things that just don’t add up, but it literally showcases all of the incomprehensibly evil things god has done. If anything, it should be demotivating people to have faith in him.

2: Lack of evidence: He knew that humans would eventually start to listen to reason and facts (at least some of us anyway) and therefore, leaving the bible as the only evidence of his existence is ineffective for people who think without bias.

3: Intended human diversity: He knew that humans in other parts of the world would worship other gods/no god and has done nothing at all to even challenge their beliefs, rather he just sends them to hell (welcome to religion brother💀)

4: The problem with “free will”: He created a species with free will over themselves and their mind, and considering all of the previous mentioned points, it’s quite obvious that many wouldn’t follow his religion, and he was fully aware of all of this. He knew billions wouldn’t have faith, yet he did nothing to change that.

TLDR/recap: God knew billions wouldn’t have faith in him due to lack of evidence and himself being immoral in immeasurable ways. He has done nothing to change this.

As a result, billions upon billions will now suffer in hell for eternity, all because he didn’t give enough reason to devote your life to him, aside from blind faith and a promise of heaven.

So my topic is can the text of Bible be trusted or not and can we say it to be inerrant and infallible. My argument is that the Bible has textual changes that change the meaning of the text. For example, in septuaginta's (old testament that new testament's writers used) 1 samuel 17:4 told originally Goliath's height to be 4 cubits and a span (Supported by Vaticanus, Origen [hexapla], Hippolytus, Josephus and 4Q51 [qumran scrolls]) but afterwards it was changed to 6 cubits and a span -> the later reading is wrong and it changes how tall Goliath really was. So my question is: how can the Bible be anymore fully trusted and infallible while its text has had readings that were wrong/erroneous and changed/corrupted?

Christians often try to solve the problem by claiming that we could recognize these textual changes by using textual criticism and therefore we could trust the text. However this doesn't work because there are readings that we just can't restore and we have no way to know which reading was original. For example, in luke 10:1 & 10:17 there are two textual variants (70 vs 72) and both readings have very strong evidences to support them -> we have no way to know which one of them was the original reading.

So my question is: How can we fully trust and say that the Bible is fully infallible and inerrant while throughout its history it has had readings that are incorrect/erroneous and its text has been changed the way that changes the meaning of text, but we have no way to reconstruct the whole text and recognize all the changed readings?

And answers like "we have thousands of manuscripts" and "most of the variants are insignificant (like "Jesus Christ" vs "Christ Jesus")" or "the core doctrine (like Jesus is God) hasn't been changed" explanations don't actually answer the question in any way.

Note: I am talking about the majority that believe lgbt is a sin, I know not all sects of Abrahamic Religions believe that

So, I don't believe that lgbt is a sin for you guys, why?

Well one why would god be petty enough to care about your gender or sexual preferences if he has bigger god things to do?

Secondly: most scriptures of you guys were made by ancient people, ancient people said things different than us and most of these are sort of like literal translations so some verses saying lgbt is bad is likely mis readings

Thirdly: ancient people weren't smart, even if these verses do mean it literally, ancient people weren't smart. They literally believed disease came from bad air

Fourthly: if god doesn't want different sexualities then why would he make gay people and etc? It's clearly mentioned multiple times god made you in his image so why would he make a gay person be gay in his image if gayness is bad?

Fifthly: sexuality and gender dysmorphia and etc aren't exactly things one can make magically change or disappear, that's sorta impossible unless you get a lobotomy but lobotomy is definitely a sin

Sixth: even if you use the strawman argument (Which is already debunkable using my older reasons) that being gay or something like that won't let you make babies, there's already millions of babies being born a year, 10% of the population not being able to make babies won't affect it. And plus there are ways to make babies without sex, I am pretty sure there was a woman who was born cause a sperm and egg was put in a petri dish, If that's possible then having sex isn't the only way to have kids

And yeah, but this is heavily leaning to Christianity and a bit of islam so I am not sure if this is that true for Muslims or Jews and etc

The idea that without evil, you cannot have free will is highly flawed, and I’m going to present some arguments showing that we can still have free will without evil.

To have free will, you need the ability to choose between good and neutral options. Even without evil, you could still choose to do good or choose not to do good. You could feed the poor or choose not to feed the poor, donate to charity or choose not to donate to charity.

Therefore, we can still have free will without evil. Our goodness would still be meaningful because we wouldn’t be doing good simply because we were programmed to do so. We would be doing good even though we could choose not to. That would be genuine and meaningful goodness.

I’ve been examining Islam from a historical-critical perspective, and I’m struggling with how much of the religion appears to be rooted in its specific Arabian context.

1. Linguistic and cultural context
   The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes that it is an Arabic revelation (e.g., 12:2, 26:192–195, 42:7, 43:3). Its rhetoric, vocabulary, and imagery are rooted in Arabic, and it addresses a community with specific social, religious, and political concerns in seventh-century western Arabia.

2. Continuity with pre-Islamic Arabian religious practices
   Islam incorporates and reinterprets practices associated with Arabia, including pilgrimage to the Kaaba, circumambulation, the rites at Safa and Marwa, and the concept of sacred months. The Qur’an regulates these practices within a monotheistic framework rather than introducing an entirely new ritual system. How much of this continuity can be established historically, and what does it suggest about Islam’s origins?

3. The Qur’an’s relationship with the religious environment of late antiquity
   The Qur’an engages extensively with Jewish and Christian traditions, including narratives about Abraham, Moses, Mary, and Jesus, alongside debates about monotheism, prophecy, resurrection, and judgment. This suggests that Islam emerged within the broader religious world of late antiquity, adapting and responding to ideas already circulating in the region.

4. Historically situated laws and social institutions
   The Qur’an addresses polygyny (4:3), slavery and concubinage (4:24; 23:5–6), inheritance (4:11–12), retaliation (2:178), and other aspects of social life in its original community. Some rules reform existing institutions, while others regulate them. If these teachings constitute timeless divine guidance, how should we distinguish universal principles from provisions shaped by the assumptions and circumstances of seventh-century Arabian society?

5. The problem of universality
   I understand that a universal message could originate in a particular culture. Muslims can argue that God deliberately chose Arabic and Arabia as the vehicle for a message intended for all humanity. But historically, what evidence would distinguish that explanation from the hypothesis that Islam developed as a human religious movement within its particular cultural environment?
   The Qur’an’s claims to universality (e.g., 7:158 and 21:107) establish what the text claims about its own scope, but I’m interested in the question of how we independently assess that claim.

For Muslims who have seriously considered this issue, what convinced you that Islam’s historical and cultural specificity is compatible with its claim to universal divine revelation.

Christians already believe that God sometimes uses disease and natural (supernatural?) disasters to inflict suffering. (Floods, plagues, opening the earth, striking people with leprosy, tummy aches) When asked about natural evils/suffering in POE discussions, Christians ought to be fine with saying, "Yeah, God gave you bone cancer for a morally sufficient reason," instead of trying to blame physics, the fallen world, or Plantinga's mischievous weather demons.

Doesn't that mean God is causing gratuitous suffering? Idk, the global flood seemed pretty gratuitous, but a true Christian can simply appeal to divine judgment. Not sure what your baby did wrong to warrant a genetic defect? Doesn't matter, you don't need to! It was necessary for the best possible world. There's no need to worry about committing the "just world fallacy" since Christianity already assumes the world will ultimately be just.

Now, for a subset of Christians, this might be all very "uh, yeah, duh," but I'm more focused on Christians who prefer to distance God from instances of suffering.

If you can believe in blessings, you can believe in curses. And if you can't believe in divine curses, then maybe you should rethink your blessings. Maybe those aren't from God, either.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe there is only the one God and believing in any others is a major sin. It is explicitly stated many times in the Torah, Bible, and Quran to not associate others with God and to only worship Him alone.

However, there have been so many others religions throughout history, most of which have multiple Gods. It seems the narrative is that if the Abrahamic God exists, every other religion is false, but there is a middle area that is not considered.

What if all of these Gods exist, and they have been in some sort of war over worship for thousands of years? They each split into multiple pantheons in the beginning and took their own respective regions to start from (Greece, Egypt, India, China, Middle East, etc), and many of those pantheons have fallen and lost their influence on humans, and there are laws/limits to how much they are allowed to directly show themselves to humans.

Maybe they are just higher beings above us and none of them actually created the universe or know how it all started, and are questioning their existence just like us.

The Abrahamic God could be one of these Gods, and amidst the war for worship between these pantheons, it came up with a new idea for how to gain worship all for itself by claiming to be the only God, and began by sending a message to Abraham.

Maybe it was part of a failed pantheon originally, we even have historical and archeological evidence that Yahweh was originally part of a pantheon before Judaism was created and turned him into their only God.

The Abrahamic God could exist, but that doesn’t mean others like the Hindu and Buddhist ones don’t.

Alternatively, maybe the God from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are actually three different Gods each claiming to be the true creator, with the Jewish one coming first and choosing the Israelites as its people, and then Christian and Muslim ones both coming later and claiming to be the same one, with the Christian one taking a human form as Jesus and the Muslim one sending the Quran to Muhammad. Other Gods could also have tried to steal the monotheist/Abrahamic ideas with Sikhism, Baha’i faith, Mormonism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

People don’t seem to consider the possibility that higher beings do exist, but are not actually telling us the truth. That’s a middle area between theism and atheism.