Christian Doctrine is correct

(R1) The story of Adam GCL explains the story of Adam in great detail. However, her description simply raises two aspects of Christian Doctrine that make no sense: (A) "free will" and (B) the concept of "original sin." //A// Adam's free will GCL says, "God gave [Adam and Eve] the free will to decide for themselves what they considered right and wrong and they chose to disobey [by eating the Forbidden Fruit]." However, God has divine foreknowledge, so as soon as he created the Tree of Knowledge, he already knew that Adam would eat the Forbidden Fruit. God could have chosen not to create the Tree of Knowledge. He also could have chosen not to create the serpent that tempted Eve, who then convinced Adam to eat the Fruit. Yet, God chose to create both the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge knowing full well that doing so would get Adam kicked out of Eden. Due to His omniscience, God already knows exactly what conditions He must create in order to cause us to make a particular decision. Thus, we have no free will. God is really pulling the strings the whole time. The Butterfly Effect holds that all of our actions are determined by a number of small factors that all coincide to make us do a particular thing. God can manipulate us by simply changing one small factor in the string of causation. At the end of the day, God already knows how he can nudge us to make one decision or another. And the Bible says that God does intervene in the world, which proves that He knows that whenever He intervenes, He is changing many of the decisions we would have made. In many ways, it is the height of cruelty that God knows that whenever he intervenes in the world, He is causing a chain of events, which cause certain people to switch from Belief to Non-Belief, thereby damning them to Hell. Either God is cruel or there is no free will. //B// Original Sin GCL articulates the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, which holds that God blamed all of humanity for the sins of Adam. However, this concept is incoherent. If humans have free will, subsequent generations were not "responsible" for Adam's choice. A loving God would not have punished an entire species for the sins of a single member. (C1) The Trinity = Dumb GCL responds to this argument merely by citing Scripture. She says, "My opponent suggests that Jesus is not God when even in the New Testament of Scripture "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)." However, this isn't a very good response to the argument that the parts of the Bible that assert Jesus' divinity are utter fabrications. First, the Scriptures themselves are internally inconsistent. In passages other than John 10:30, Jesus suggested that he was *not* divine. John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I." Mark 13:32, "no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the . . . Son himself. Only the Father knows." [Suggesting that Jesus was not omniscient, unlike God]. Second, GCL never explains why one part of an entity had to die in order for another party of the entity to forgive humanity. GCL also has no response to the incoherence of saying that Jews and Muslims go to Hell for non-belief in Jesus' divinity, when the Trinity holds that "God" and "Jesus" are equivalencies. Here's a logical proof: J = Jesus G = God H = Holy Spirit (1) J = G = H. ["The Trinity"] (2) Jews and Muslims believe in G. (3) A belief in J is necessary for entry into Heaven. (4) Jews and Muslims believe in J. [This follows from (1) and (2).] (5) Therefore, Jews and Muslims go to Heaven. [This follows from (3) and (4).] If Jesus and God are the same entity, a belief in God is automatically a belief in "Jesus." The fact that Christian Doctrine acknowledges that it is possible to believe in God, but not Jesus, proves the Trinity false. You could not say, "I believe GCL exists, but I don't believe Marie exists." Such a statement is incoherent. "GCL" and "Mary" are the same entity. Thus, GCL's implicit concession that it is possible to believe in "God" but not "Jesus" disproves the Trinity. (C2) Belief in Jesus as a pre-requisite to entry to Heaven GCL says some people go to Hades, which is still not Heaven. GCL never answers the argument that people are denied access to Heaven, even if they never had a legitimate opportunity to learn about Jesus. Pre-Bible, the Christians were a small sect and their message was not spread very far or wide. It seems unfair to condemn people to Hell at a time when Christianity was just one or two followers who were just rambling incoherently about how some dude's body disappeared from some tomb. Yet, if God granted people a grace period because the evidence was weak, what is the brightline? Is the Bible really good enough evidence to condemn people to Hell for non-belief? A lot of people would say no. Leaving dinosaur fossils everywhere and redshifting light just to trick us into believing in evolution and the Big Bang seems really mean, when all the opposing evidence is contained in a book riddled with contradictory passages and that contains passages asserting the existence of unicorns (Numbers 23:22) and fire-breathing Leviathans in the ocean (Job 41:1-19). (C3) The Bible = inerrant //A// Young Earth Creation = wrong GCL doesn't answer my argument here. Science proves the Earth is older than 6,000 years old and that the Creation story is wrong because humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes. More proof: //B//Conflicting genealogies GCL drops this argument and merely asks me a question. My answer is: yes, I am saying that both genealogies are fabricated. Matthew and Luke were just making up names to prove Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, in order to bolster the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Matthew and Luke were trying to get people from the Jewish community to convert to Christianity. //C// Mythical creatures & other dumb stuff I provided the Biblical citations for this above. GCL simply says that people wouldn't be dumb enough to believe in a fire-breathing Leviathan, but the people who wrote the Bible were pretty "dumb" simply because they lived in an age that pre-dated modern science and biology. The people who wrote the Bible also lacked a basic understanding of physics, which is why they wrote that the Earth was flat (Job 38:13; Isaiah 11:12; Rev. 7:1), stationary (Eccles. 1:5; Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Joshua 10:12; 1 Chron. 16:30) and resting on pillars (I Sam. 2:8; Job 9:6, 38:4). Obviously, the Bible is wrong because we now know the Earth is round, revolves around the Sun, and is held in place by the Sun's gravity (not pillars). If the Bible is the "inerrant" word of God, it wouldn't say things that are obviously wrong. //D// Non-adoption of canon My argument here was merely that the early Catholic Church was filled with humans, who exercised their "free will" to choose which books to include as part of "the Bible." The Bible therefore cannot be divinely inspired. Revelations was almost not included as part of the Bible. //E//Archaeologists disproved the Exodus GCL drops my argument here. She merely cites to the destruction of Nineveh, which is described somewhere in the Bible. I never claimed that every event described in the Bible was false. Some of them were real events, recorded in the Bible for antiquities' sake. But the Exodus from Egypt was not one of the real ones. (C4) Contradiction of free will GCL merely re-asserts that God is omniscient. I agree, but I proved in the previous round that his omniscience is inconsistent with the concept of free will. GCL never answers this argument. (C5) Problem of evil The problem of evil is a logical proof: (1) God is omnibenevolent. (2) God is omnipotent. (3) A being that had both these traits would end all suffering. (4) Suffering exists. (5) God does not exist. GCL never answers this argument. She only says that God did not murder the children in Egypt, he only took their souls to be with Him. However, (1) the Egyptians at the time were polytheistic, so these children actually went to Hell under Christian Doctrine, which is messed up, and (2) if sending a child to "be with God" cannot equate to "murder," then abortion isn't murder. (C6) Abortion GCL doesn't answer my rule utilitarianism argument, which proves why rigid rules like "Though shalt not kill" are stupid. Also, if you define "murder" (as GCL does) as "killing another Homo sapien, regardless of the circumstances," then self-defense and killing a rival soldier during war are "murder." Like self-defense and war, abortion is simply another exception to the normal rule that killing is wrong. The extenuating circumstances in the abortion context are that a woman's interest in bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus' feeble claim to life since it is not self-aware nor can it feel pain. Self-defense and war have different extenuating circumstances, but all these exceptions prove that you cannot take "Though shalt not kill" too literally.