There is at Least One Problem with the Notion of a Catholic (Christian) God

I won't admit my argument is absurd because it isn't. We are moral today for the same reason we eat and drink food in spite of the fact we will die: we have to, to be able to survive to reach our deaths. So Christianity's glaring moral flaw won't be abused by every person. Okay. That child rapist that lived to recant on his deathbed? He's in heaven. Jenny Atheist is in hell though for the "crime" of nobelief. Also, apparently morality is absurd without an afterlife, and yet Pro provides a perfectly good reason (the same one I have been using) for why we should be moral: getting along. No, you see, it was a change within the heart.You accused me of saying all Chrisianity was immoral. That was not my position. Actually, you have to prove that there isn't a flaw within Christianity, but you have the burden of proof. Again, I have taken it upon myself to present potential problems and argue against your explanations, which I think I have shown to be very weak.The fact that so much of a rule book is left up to interpretation sounds like a problem. I don't know why you bring up Tradition and Magisterium. Do rules need stories to explain them? The consequences are explained about breaking rules, but fictional, abstract tales aren't presented in, say, a lab safety manual.The Bible is actually very bloated because of the extra baggage of unnecessary stories. What can simply be said in a few words is told in an entire story. A smart god would plan ahead for technology, or present his rules in a way that they never need to change. You say that revisions need to be made, but Jesus says that anybody that tampers with the book is going to Hell. (Rev 22:19).I'm an atheist, but I'm not materialistic. Spirituality doesn't conquer death just like Santa Claus doesn't conquer the problem of going everywhere in one night. If you need spirituality to feel good at night then go ahead but I'm going to be spending time with my family and making the most out of my time here. Oh, so the Bible fails as a rule book? Then it was never meant to be, even though it was treated by Christians for thousands of years and even today as the book we need to follow to get to Heaven. And yet, I highly doubt that every Catholic let alone every Christian would get the same laws to follow from simmering in the spirit of a dusty old book. Except that the law isn't written on our hearts because we all come to very different moral conclusions (note, this isn't an argument for moral relativism. Not all moral systems are equal). So wait, you write down the rules you get from drinking in the spirit of the law, which you gained from an admittedly inneffecient rule book. So to make something harder to reject you make it harder to define by hiding it inside a web of a story? And you seem to think that there is a differenc between the story and an objective fact. So are the messages in the stories true or not?Q3: Who's they? God or the Israelis. Q4: Think the Bible isn't clear enough? Ditch it away. It's not like your holy text is all that important anyway. Just the writings of mad man.You say that there is some way to demonstrate the truth of the Bible, but you do not do it for us. 'Tis a shame.I think that just stating an idea, especially if I need to know and follow it to get to heaven, would be the smart thing to do.You haven't explained anything other than the Bible, though. What's a magisterium? And wouldn't the necessity of a corrective measure point to a fault? Most manuals don't need a scribe to guide the congregation.So the vague, confusing, and overall unclear parts of the Bible aren't to blame for denominations, it's... the people that have to read them. I'd say both are to blame for putting any trust in such a horribly constructed truth. If the Bible is your Holy Text why would you try and divorce yourself from it? I would think the dead weight given by the Bible would be a problem. You never demonstrated that those three things ever happened, or even really explained why that test is accurate for a Protestant or a nonbeliever. And if the Protestants are right in that Catholicism is incorrect, can you really claim a continuity? What matters in a continuity if it is based on false things?Where does it say that God couldn't do it because of the iron chariots? Why, the very place I've said over and over again: Judges 1:19. But since you can't do even moderate research for yourself: Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.Yes, they do. I don't be with things that don't exist. Attacking is an offensive move. Distancing was a defensive move. And I'm sorry if your all mighty god's nonexistant feelings are hurt that I point out he's a warmongering, bloodthirsty narcessit, but seeing as I am going to be the one burning at the end of the day, I don't really care.If you ask me, there is nothing to come to.I agree it wouldn't be just to put people in hell for no good reason. He has no good reason. He is not just.What choice is there in being poor, eh? What choice is there for starving, or for freezing, or for being murdered? God isn't in favor of free will. He is in favor of free will for psychopaths and murderers. So sorry if I don't claim him as my father. You also ignore my point that giving someone a future present THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST if they meet a certain criteria doesn't make up for abadoning someone if they can help. Your god doesn't even help all those who are in pain, though. What about Muslim rape victims? Are they evil too?The point is that showing himself to the world wouldn't restrict free will because Satan had free will, knew of god, and rebelled.Apparently he is limited because he can't, or wont (which makes him evil) rescue these people before they are in pain. If god is all knowing, he already knows the results of these tests and any pain experienced is even more unnecessary.Pro's arguments were cut off, but I'll respond to some of his comments here.Comment 1: Wow, didn't take you long to apologize for rape. Of course God couldn't fix these sexist societies in which prisoners of wars are forced to marry their family's murderers, and then be legally raped by them. He was just watching out for the little 9 and 10 year old girls. Wouldn't want to treat them with respect, am I right? Your argument that God is beholden to these societies is so f*cking weak though. When does God evr cave to the Israelites? He punishes them for the slightest moaning on a 40 year journey. But I hope you can sleep tonight.God created the rules in which women weren't given that freedom. God is their dictator and he isn't improving the lives of anybody but thealready privileged. No, buddy, you argue for why the ownership of others is okay. Don't just give me sources.Comment 2: Nobody is harmed. That's the definition of harmless. The two people getting tax benefits from marriage gain something. The difference between male roomates and two men dating is, obviously, a relationship.You were trying to defend a passage that seemed to say women aren't equal to men. I curse god's name because I like it and he can't stop me. So here we get right down to it. God isn't even good for you, you are just suffering battered wife's syndrom, because at the end of the day, God is a bully, and abuser, and yet he still demands your love. So murder the young boys because they might be against being conquered. Wow, who'd have thunk it?C3: The idea that it is okay to put people through extreme amounts of pain on the offchance they MIGHT make it to heaven is disgusting and the test is unfair. A test would only work if we were all submitted to the same experiences so as to isolate the variable. People not being able to move is not a rebellion, nor is it relevant to what I was saying.Okay, for the rest, I might just take to the comments, but seriously man, go god damned f*ck yourself.