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

With morals, people can and should scrutinize moral systems. One point I want to make though, is that the type of atheism that doesn't believe in an afterlife pretty much destroys morality, and so this type of atheism is bad to be in from a moral standpoint (I can explain if asked). Now, if you are going to accuse Christianity of immorality, the burden of proof would be on the accuser by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Now, if you want me to give evidence as to why Christianity isn't immoral, rather than just try and poke holes in your argument and give reasonable doubts at minimum, I can give that (starting at an argument for God existence). I would like for you to give a proof outside of a religion system (which includes the rejection of an afterlife. If there is a belief in an afterlife, then be particular about it, and show why it isn't blind faith (meaning give evidence for believing in it)). Q1: Yes, that is a good question, why the creation story isn't literal. The point of it is to give an explanation about God. What it is saying is that God created everything, and that God created in an orderly way, as expressly contrasted with the Greek religion saying that everything came from Chaos. It is a sort of rebuttal to the ancient Greeks. Q2: This is also a good question, why there are scientific inaccuracies. The reason for this could be that people weren't concerned about this, as they would otherwise give more evidence of that in some way. Q2 & Q3: To say that they are a scientifically ignorant culture requires a lack of evidence (so it is my burden right now). However, they probably were very familiar with astronomy, and probably had some level of mathematics. They also had agriculture, hunting, creating fires, making buildings, and possibly sailing and fishing. That requires some level of knowledge/science/order, otherwise survival won't be as good. Two sources to consider could be along these lines (I haven't read these though) http://www.amazon.com... and http://www.academia.edu.... As to the Creation story, one can be scientifically ignorant yet still realize that the sun couldn't have been created on the fourth day, when a day is defined by sun. Therefore, a day must have a different meaning than the common one. Q4: It is presented to be true because there is a message that is being sent from it that is more important than just science or history. That message is morality and its connection to the afterlife. Well, for Creationism and the World Wide Flood, there are scientific problems. However, the Catholic Church doesn't endorse those as true, though some Christian denominations do. In fact, Catholicism doesn't have a problem if both of those are false in terms of history. However, there are more important lessons to get out of it. Stories are told to children because they bring up important points of life, wisdom. Allegories and parables are examples of this. I agree that there does need to be an authority to understand the Bible, as it can get pretty confusing. Fortunately, the Catholic Church has the Magisterium, which is are its authoritative Church leaders in Catholicism that has as part of their duties, teaching and explaining Bible passages. The reason there are 30,000 denominations isn't because Christianity allows this. In fact, it says somewhere in the Bible that there is only one Church. From the Catholic point of view, denominations started happening because of Martin Luther and his protesting the Catholic Church rightfully for some of the abuses it had. However, instead of staying inside the Catholic Church, he went outside of it. Later on, people then protested against Martin Luther, and so on, until there are 30,000 denominations. Now, Catholicism says that in between those 1,500 years between the start of the Church and Martin Luther there was the Catholic Church, while the opponents say that that Church was too corrupted. However, the problem with this is that how can you distinguish between something that God gives and something that a person claims is from God when it really is just from himself? There is a solution to this in regards to Jesus, as there is a reasonable system for God to show that it really is Him and not someone pretending that God is with them. The system is this: (1) God pre-announces His coming, (2) that person does miracles, maybe a miracle-worker, and (3) they don't contradict natural reason. My defense of Judges 1:19 is to say that your offense isn't enough to succeed. I am saying that we can assume that the story can be taken literally, and that your offense isn't enough without further explanation. Here is my defense. What if the Lord doesn't want them to win in that situation, since it would require extraordinary, and not ordinary means, and what if the Lord prefers the ordinary means to the extraordinary means? Also, it seems that they won something (the hill country). Even if they didn't win, at least they seem to be saying that they didn't get destroyed, even though the opponent had greater technology. Now, that said, it doesn't mean that this battle happened historically, but that's not the point of it. The point could be that one should learn from one's opponents, rather than write them off. (*1) (Means that I will discuss this next round) On slavery (*2) Exodus 21:2-6 (did you mean Leviticus 25 instead?) (*3) Exodus 21:20-21 (*4) Numbers 31:17-18 Well, Hell is described in that way for some Christians maybe, but not for Catholics. In fact, that version of Hell doesn't make sense if God is Love or if God is Justice. It doesn't make sense for the Native Americans who didn't have an opportunity to choose God like other people. The version that makes sense is this: People go to Hell because they choose it, meaning that they explicitly reject being with God. Technically though, the crime is infinite, because of "crime-ing", a.k.a. sinning, against an infinite being (God). There is a problem if people don't believe their denomination on fundamental things. Yes, science does pose problems for those types of Christians. Now, that doesn't disprove the religion, it just means that that religion ought to have a sufficient explanation as to why God can overcome physical laws. You can scrutinize religious documents, that's not a bad thing. (*5) More Issues: #1 #2: Original sin is a way of explaining why man sins against God. It is silly for human to be responsible for something they didn't do. That being said, families, like nations, can be punished by the actions of their leaders, though it isn't just (though God can still be just). I agree that it isn't just to be punished for the crimes of others. However, there is still the possibility justice being made up in Heaven. Not only that, but Heaven lasts infinitely longer and is infinitely better than life on Earth, so Earth will feel like nothing compared to Heaven and Hell. So, seeing this whole picture, who would complain of a sad life on Earth, of being poor, or being a slave? Those things aren't ideal, but there is at least hope for justice. People don't go to Hell because of original sin, but because they choose Hell. With the tree, you spotted a contradiction, so this passage can't be taken literally. Good eye. Genesis 2:9 contrasts two trees: "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." One article says this: "The Tree of Death. " The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented mankind taking to himself the ability to produce knowledge of what is good and evil, what is right and wrong." (*6) Source So, one interpretation is that God doesn't want man to make up its own rules, as God's rules are best. (*7) #3 (*8) #4