Please help me get over these hurdles...

[bihzor]

So, I got an e-mail from someone that I've tried to share the Gospel with, and I have no clue how to respond. Here it is:

Things that I do NOT like about Biblical Christianity include (but are by no means limited to):
homophobic
sexist
cruel to rape victims
sanctions slavery
many contradictions in the bible
we are supposed to be obedient to god
i think its a fear based religion. without the threat of hell i don't think it would be as effective
the concept of original sin-" you are flawed and sinful, an aberration in the eyes of god; worthless and bound to an eternity of suffering by default just for being born. Why? Because 6000 or so years ago, a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating a magical fruit. This indiscretion is now your inheritance, and as far as god is concerned, you are equally responsible."
you are discouraged from questioning god, and the bible, and the religion in general.
god punished adam and eve in the garden of eden, and didn't punish satan
god allows satan to be evil in the world
if god is loving, why does he cast people who don't believe in him to hell? i think this is a fundamental problem.
it is a sin to look at another person with lust, but this is a basic biological function that supposedly god gave us- isnt that a bit hard?
god is supposed to love everyone equally, but in the old testament he has favourites: the biblical Hebrews and their descendents, the Jews.
god sets double standards: we aren't to kill anyone, but he can kill millions. He says “In your anger, do not sin” and then spends entire chapters ranting about his wrathful vengeance on those who don’t acknowledge him. He says “Love your enemies” and then smites his own enemies at the drop of a hat (with the exception of Satan who inexplicably continues to get a free pass). When humans do any of the aforementioned (unless sanctioned by god), then it is sin. When god does those things or tells others to do so, he is moving in “mysterious ways” and we just have to accept it.
Furthermore, Christians are told to automatically forgive those who wrong them (even if the person guilty of the wrongdoing hasn’t even sought forgiveness), but god only forgives those who beg and plead first.
i like this quote by epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Any help formulating a response will be greatly appreciated!

 

[ChristianT]

Yeah, on some of those things, the only thing that makes those arguments effective are misunderstandings of biblical Christianity; antiquated false dilemmas based on misunderstandings, and really, ignorance. But we could go through them and answer each if you'd like; if you want me to, just PM me and I will.

 

[drich0150]

you are discouraged from questioning god, and the bible, and the religion in general.

Not according to 1 thess 5:21 Question all things and hold on to what is good.

god punished adam and eve in the garden of eden, and didn't punish satan
God allows Satan to be evil in the world

Apparently you have not read Genesis 3

if god is loving, why does he cast people who don't believe in him to hell?

God's primary quality is your understanding of Love. God offers Agape love which is conditional. Which makes God's primary quality of righteousness.

it is a sin to look at another person with lust, but this is a basic biological function that supposedly god gave us- isn't that a bit hard?

Yes! Which means you must seek salvation through others means than trying to up hold the "law."

god is supposed to love everyone equally,

Nope this is why:

but in the old testament he has favourites: the biblical Hebrews and their descendents, the Jews.

god sets double standards: we aren't to kill anyone,

Not true we are not to murder anyone. Murdering is different than killing. Murder is the unsanctioned taking of life.

but he can kill millions. He says “In your anger, do not sin” and then spends entire chapters ranting about his wrathful vengeance on those who don’t acknowledge him. He says “Love your enemies” and then smites his own enemies at the drop of a hat (with the exception of Satan who inexplicably continues to get a free pass). When humans do any of the aforementioned (unless sanctioned by god), then it is sin. When god does those things or tells others to do so, he is moving in “mysterious ways” and we just have to accept it.

Indeed.

Furthermore, Christians are told to automatically forgive those who wrong them (even if the person guilty of the wrongdoing hasn’t even sought forgiveness), but god only forgives those who beg and plead first.

Actually no. God will not forgive anyone who has not forgiven those who sinned against them.

i like this quote by epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

My response to the last 10 Epericurean "paradox' questions:
We answer this like we do with any other question.

First we define the parameters of the question. Meaning we take into account the circumstances of the who or when the question was asked, and then we look at what is asked.

Second we help the one asking the question to redefine any misconceptions they may have in the questions asked, leading to a false assumption, then we address the question according to the bible.

Finally we draw together all of the points i have outlined so they can come to a biblically based conclusion.
For example we know that this Greek philosopher lived about 2300 years ago and was not privy the revelation of Christ and the teachings of the NT. At best He was living in a truly dark age which saw no light of salvation. If someone is using his words in the context He wrote them, then a simple explanation of the Gospel should answer each and every question Epicurus had.
But I know the general popularity this set of questions has found in recent days is not because of the original intent this philosopher had when He wrote this query. Our modern want-to-be's have taken this question out of it's orginal context (Questioning the validity of the Greek God's Epericus knew) and married it with a pop culture understanding of the words, sin, evil and a loose understanding Omni aspects of The God of the Bible.

So what we must do now is re-educate and give a biblical account of these words and how they relate to the popular culture's understanding of these questions. We do this by deconstructing the question line by line.
(I took the liberty of looking up the actual quote)

We start with the basics by giving a biblical definition of Sin, Evil and Freewill.
Sin, is anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil is a malicious intent to be outside the expressed will of God.
Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.
Free Will Is the ability to be outside of the Expressed Will of God on your own accord. In other words The "gift" of free will is the ability to Sin.
We have been given this ability so we may choose where we wish to spend eternity, but as with any real choice comes a price and consequence.
*Side note; Apparently Epicurus did not have a complete understanding of God's word or His plan as outlined here. Nor would anyone of that time period, but to those who would twist this effort to suit their own agenda there will be little excuse.
On to the actual quote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent."

Evil is the ultimate expression of sin. It is the proof that we indeed have a will outside of God's expressed will. In other words Evil is the proof or ultimate result of free will.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

If we were not given the choices this life affords (including the option to be evil) then we would have simply been created to either spend an eternity with God or to Spend an eternity in Hell. This is the picture of true malevolence. (The souls being created to exist in Hell with no say in the matter) As it is we have been given a choice to be evil or not. No one is forcing us to be evil. It is a choice made in a man's heart apart from the expressed Will of God. Because we have been given a true choice we have to all live with the consequences.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Again, Evil is the proof of Free will. Free Will and the consequences of those choices are the point and purpose of this life. We are to choose where we wish to spend eternity. Without "Sin and Evil" there is not point of been given this existence.

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Because the Title "God" has absolutely nothing to do with how Epicurus nor the person using this quote defines it.

I am so confused.

then highlight what confuses you and we will discuss line by line if needed.

My friend that wrote that e-mail is a whole lot smarter than I am, so I guess what I'm asking is...
Is my friend wrong about this stuff?

As you can see your "friend" is not as smart as you/he thinks he is.

If so, please give me an answer that will convince me, and that I can pass along to my friend to hopefully convince them.

No one will be convinced of anything they have already set their mind/heart against.

 

[hedrick]

This kind of posting is hard, because it raises every apologetic issue in the book, and thus would really require a book to answer:

Things that I do NOT like about Biblical Christianity include (but are by no means limited to):
homophobic
sexist
cruel to rape victims
sanctions slavery
many contradictions in the bible
we are supposed to be obedient to god

This depends upon what you mean by Biblical. There are two responses to homophobic and sexist. One is that decent Christians don't hate gays or women, but God has told us that it's best for everyone if people don't have sex with others of the same gender, and that women have different but just as important roles as men.

I understand that we choose belief systems because they seem to lead to a good life. But there are dangers with choosing a belief because of its consequences: Some of what comes naturally to us may be wrong. At some point we have to believe evidence, even if it pushes us in directions that seem unpleasant. If there really is a God, it's reasonable to think that he will want us to do things we wouldn't do on our own. Of course that argument can only go so far: it can't justify a religion that's full of hatred. At least not one that claims to be based on love. But good conservative Christians treat both gays and women sympathetically. They just think God wants us to do things that the culture as a whole disagrees with.

As it happens, I don't agree with the conservative consensus on these issues. However the rules of CF don't allow me to explain on the gay issue. You'll find plenty of threads here about the role of women. I think there's good reason to think that Jesus and even Paul treated women pretty much equally to men, and that this was a stark contrast to the surrounding cultures. Rodney Stark has written several books about Christian history from a social-science point of view. He thinks one of the most attractive features of Christianity was precisely that it treated women very well. You need to understand more about the culture at the time to understand that.

As it happens, the current Western concept of original sin developed after Christianity had mostly swept the Roman Empire, and it's not really present in the East even today. So whether you agree or not, it can't be that Christianity spread because of fear of the consequences of original sin.

Furthermore, this is an incorrect description of what it means. Original sin seems to me one of the Christian doctrines that even non-Christians should agree on: it says that there are fundamental flaws in human character. We see demonstrations of this on the nightly news every day.

There are lots of Christian approaches, but I'll use John Calvin as an example, since he's supposedly one of the worst bad guys in this area. First, he denies that we are guilty of Adam's sin. What we get from Adam is the flawed human nature. But you can just as well say the flaw comes from the way we evolved. The issue is what we do about it. Calvin also says that despite our flaws, God still sees his image in us and loves us, and wants to fix us. That's the whole point of Jesus.

Not everybody discourages questions, though I agree that some people do. I teach Sunday School for 12 - 14 year olds. I push them to think as carefully as possible. I'm certainly not alone.

While I don't think the Garden of Eden story is literally true, but it's worth looking at what it says. He most certainly did punish the snake. He turned it from a super-intelligent talking animal into what we see today with snakes, dumb animals that everyone considers repulsive and attacks. See Gen 3:14-15 for the snake's punishment. (Of course that requires you to think in the framework of the original story, and not identify the snake quite so directly with Satan.)

The best answer I know to evil is that God's goals are probably not quite what you're thinking about. From a Christian point of view, the world is basically a training ground, a way to give us an area to develop without the vision of God overwhelming us. To do this, we need real problems, and real consequences.

If you look at the unorthodox theology group, you'll see that there's lots of discussion about the morality of hell. CF rules don't permit it to be questioned in this group, but there are plenty of Christians who have issues as well. But, in defense of hell, the primary purpose of judgement isn't revenge; it's putting things right. We certainly don't want God to tolerate evil forever. But that requires him to work on us to fix us. In my view that's really what Jesus was all about. The problem is that if we won't let him work on us, he may not be able to do so. I believe it is acceptable even without large parts of conservative Christianity to say that God doesn't intentionally torture people, but if someone won't have anything to do with him, he has to protect the renewed creation by excluding them.

You can go further than that if you're willing to be a bit unorthodox. I think there is Biblical grounds for some alternatives. But the rules won't allow that discussion here.

The main passage on lust is Mat 5:28. "Lust" is the same Greek word as "covet". That is, it's not innocent sexual attraction, it's something that wants possession or control. Unfortunately this is all too common an approach by men towards women. Jesus was absolutely right to prohibit it.

Israel was chosen to be an agent of redemption. The prophets said they were to be a "light to the Gentiles." God seems to work through people as much as he can, so he chose one group of people to enlighten, and expected them to get to everyone else. The problem is that Israel wasn't up to the job. That's what Jesus is about.

On God's vengeance. I'm sure you can tell already that I'm not a conservative. I think the Bible gives us a correct description of what people at the time believed and did. I am not convinced that God actually wanted Israel to commit genocide. That is, I think they didn't hear God right. In some of the early accounts, God looks just like everyone else's tribal war god. But the prophets and then Jesus tried to move the Jews out of this mind-set.

Jesus says that God's forgiveness is a model for ours. In many cases when someone came to Jesus he said that their sins were forgiven first, and they then responded in gratitude. However there are reasons to want people to repent. God cares about sin because it does bad things to other people. Thus he should want us to change, i.e. to repent. He doesn't expect us to be perfect, but he does expect a basic commitment to change, which should be reflected in action.

I've tried to explain Christianity from as broad a perspective as possible. As I've noted, many of the issues can be dealt with in the framework of a fairly traditional Christianity. If you're willing to read something, my best recommendation is "The Reason for God", by Keller. It's the best defense of a moderately conservative view I've seen. However I think there are some issues that require a more critical view of Scripture. Furthermore, I think such a view is also what Jesus taught.

 

[Publius]

I have a Christian friend that is trying to share the Gospel with me and get me to accept Christ.

Maybe you should explain to your "friend" that the Bible never says anything about our "accepting Christ" but says that it's up to Christ to choose us and accept or reject us.

Things that I do NOT like about Biblical Christianity include (but are by no means limited to):

OK. I'll bite.

homophobic

Straw man. The Bible never says anything about homophobia.

sexist

Strawman. The Bible never suggests that we should be sexists.

cruel to rape victims

Strawman. The Bible never says we should be cruel to rape victims.

sanctions slavery

Straw man. The Bible never sanctions slavery. To the contrary, it calls for the death penalty for slave traders.

many contradictions in the bible

"Many"? OK. Give me your top three.

we are supposed to be obedient to god

And that's a bad thing because...?

i think its a fear based religion. without the threat of hell i don't think it would be as effective

First of all, how are you defining "effective"? Second, why would a Christian be afraid of Hell when the Bible is clear that Christians don't go to Hell?

the concept of original sin-" you are flawed and sinful, an aberration in the eyes of god; worthless and bound to an eternity of suffering by default just for being born.

Strawman. The Bible never says we're worthless. To the contrary, it says that our lives have great value because we were created in the image of God. Neither does it say that we're an aberration.

Are you denying that human beings are sinful?

Why? Because 6000 or so years ago, a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating a magical fruit.

Strawman. The Bible never says anything about it being "6,000 or so years ago" and never says anything about "magical fruit".

you are discouraged from questioning god, and the bible, and the religion in general.

Strawman. You're never discouraged from questioning in Christianity. Over and over, the Bible tells us to reason, to use our minds.

We're told to question, to test, to discern...

Simple question for you...er, sorry, I mean your "friend": what was Paul's attitude toward the Bereans when they questioned him?

Conversely, what was Paul's attitude toward the people in Hebrews 5?

god punished adam and eve in the garden of eden, and didn't punish satan

The Bible never says God punished Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It says that there will be a day when the unregenerate will be punished, but that hasn't happened yet.

What's more, had your "friend" actually read the Bible, he'd have known that God fashioned animal skin coverings for Adam and Eve, signifying that Christ's atoning work would be imputed to them.

Second, the reason God hasn't punished the Devil yet is because God hasn't punished anybody yet.

god allows satan to be evil in the world

And you believe this is bad because...? Why are you offended that God allows Satan to do evil, but you don't seem to mind that God allows you to do evil?

if god is loving, why does he cast people who don't believe in him to hell?

It has nothing to do with believing in God. It has to do with punishment for their sins.

i think this is a fundamental problem.

I think it's called a strawman.

it is a sin to look at another person with lust, but this is a basic biological function that supposedly god gave us- isnt that a bit hard?

Lust is not biological.

god is supposed to love everyone equally[/quoet]

Says who?

god sets double standards: we aren't to kill anyone, but he can kill millions.

First of all, how is this a double standard? If I tell my child not to drive my truck but then I drive my truck, how is that a double standard? Isn't it my truck? Might there be legitimate reasons for not letting a four year old drive a truck?

Second, the Bible doesn't say that we're not to kill anyone, but that we aren't to commit murder.

“In your anger, do not sin” and then spends entire chapters ranting about his wrathful vengeance on those who don’t acknowledge him.

What chapter is that?

He says “Love your enemies” and then smites his own enemies at the drop of a hat

Do you have an example?

Furthermore, Christians are told to automatically forgive those who wrong them (even if the person guilty of the wrongdoing hasn’t even sought forgiveness), but god only forgives those who beg and plead first.

First of all, God forgives anyone who will repent and receive Christ.

i like this quote by epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Why do you like something that's been debunked so many times?

My friend that wrote that e-mail is a whole lot smarter than I am, so I guess what I'm asking is...
Is my friend wrong about this stuff?

First of all, if your "friend" really told you that those things are true about Christianity, he doesn't sound very smart at all.

You didn't say "this is the reason I don't like Biblical Christianity". You said "this is the reason I don't like Biblical Christianity".

If so, please give me an answer that will convince me

Why?

and that I can pass along to my friend to hopefully convince them.

Why do you want to convince you "friend"?

 

[GrayAngel]

I am so confused.
My friend that wrote that e-mail is a whole lot smarter than I am, so I guess what I'm asking is...
Is my friend wrong about this stuff?
If so, please give me an answer that will convince me, and that I can pass along to my friend to hopefully convince them.
Thank you very much in advance.

Whether they're smarter than you or not does not make them knowledgeable. From the objections they have to the Bible as you've posted them, I can see that they're very ignorant about what the Bible actually teaches. They see scripture only through the narrow view their bias would permit.

There are too many in that list. Start with one, and we'll go from there.

For instance, they claim that there are many contradictions in the Bible. I'll tell you that these "contradictions" do not exist. One common example of this is the apparent inconsistency between Matthew and Acts on the death of Judas and the buyer of the potter's field.

Matthew 27:1-10 - Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”



So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.



The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”


Acts 1:15-19 - In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”


(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)


Matthew says that Judas killed himself in the potters field bought by the priests with his money, but Acts says that Judas bought the field and that he fell. Do these contradict? No. Both are right. Acts does not say that Judas died from his fall. Putting them together, we see that Judas killed himself by hanging, but at some point his corpse fell and his guts spilled everywhere.


And who bought the field? The priests bought it for Judas by proxy. The priests could not legally Judas' money, so they spent it. They bought it with Judas' money.


Also, there's another simple explanation. While the Bible is perfect, our translations of it are not. Along the way, some people have added to it and changed it. But through investigation of the manuscripts, we find inconsistencies and discover where they modifications were made. Notice that the portion in Acts about Judas is encapsulated, separated from the rest of the chapter. This is an indication that there is reason to believe it was not a part of the original writing.


There are many apparent contradictions like these, and most of them are pretty simple to explain.

 

[FundiMentalist]

I have a Christian friend that is trying to share the Gospel with me and get me to accept Christ.

Several thoughts...

1. You said "a" Christian friend. I take that to mean one. Singular. I'd suggest this... Don't talk to just one. Talk to several. Talk to many. Go to different churches. What each means by the "Gospel" varies. And it varies quite a bit across different groups and persons.

When you talk to these friends and when you visit these churches, bring these things up.

Ask the stranger in the church hallway what they think on these topics.

Do they feel comfortable talking about these topics?

Do they shy away?

Do the answers they respond with seem satisfying?

This will help you identify where you can be accepted, where you can explore, and where you can be accepted in your exploration.

"A" Christian friend might just have one flavor of answer for your assault of [really good] questions.

2. You have a lifetime.

Be patient with yourself. Be patient with others.

Never mind us on the Internet.

Develop the face-to-face friendships--where you can love and be loved and have satisfying answers for yourself in that context of kindness.

 

[bling]

You might address him like this:
If I gave logical biblically based answers to all these questions would you:



1. Just come up with another long list?
2. Accept God’s gift?
3. Willing change your life?
Why does he really want to know the answers?
Would it make Him happy to know the Christian God does exist?
Christ came to help people and there are plenty of people in this world needing help. True Christians (Christ like people) allow Christ to live and work through them helping others. What is the deeper needs your friend has that Christ if he came to him could help him with (remember that is what Christians are about doing).
What your friend may not have seen/experienced (from his comments I do not see how) is Godly type Love. That Godly type Love is actually God himself (God is Love) so truly opening his eyes to such Love is to experience God directly. Your friend needs that opportunity and not a bunch of theological responses, we cannot “proof” the existence of the Christian God by showing He is the Logical answer to a bunch of questions.
Does your friend feel the pain in remembering the hurt he caused others?
Does your friend want to be relieved of that pain to the point of humbly accepting charity?
Can you witness to him how God has turned your life around?

 

[aiki]

Things that I do NOT like about Biblical Christianity include (but are by no means limited to):
homophobic

Christians are no more homophobic than homosexuals are heterophobic. God condemns homosexuality. It is a plain perversion of God's intended design. Is God homophobic, then, because He condemns homosexuality? Obviously not.

sexist

This is simply too general an accusation to answer. Are women identical to men? Mounds of research show that on almost every level - hormonally, physiologically, emotionally, etc - men and women differ. God acknowledges this fact in the roles he ordains for the sexes.

cruel to rape victims

Chapter and verse, please. In every instance where this charge has been levelled against my faith, it has turned out that the one making the charge has badly misread the prooftexts used to make the charge.

sanctions slavery

This accusation can only be sustained when the cultural context within which the prooftexts for this accusation exist is ignored.

many contradictions in the bible

Explanations abound in refutation of the many supposed contradictions. See:

CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Stand to Reason: Stand to Reason Homepage
Defending Biblical Christianity | Reasonable Faith

we are supposed to be obedient to god

If God exists, it is perfectly rational and appropriate to submit to His omnipotent authority.

i think its a fear based religion. without the threat of hell i don't think it would be as effective

This emphasizes only a part of the entire picture of the Christian faith. In fact, love, grace, compassion, holiness and justice figure far more prominently in biblical doctrine and theology. You might ask yourself why your friend has emphasized the punishment of sin aspect of what the Bible teaches to such a degree that he/she describes Christianity as a "fear-based religion." This distortion of the facts suggests the nature of the bias from which your friend is approaching his/her view of Christianity - that or your friend is just thoughtlessly regurgitating objections he/she came across on some atheist website...

the concept of original sin-" you are flawed and sinful, an aberration in the eyes of god; worthless and bound to an eternity of suffering by default just for being born.

This is called a Strawman Argument. It is a gross mischaracterization of the facts intended to make objecting to Christianty easier. In actuality, the Bible teaches that God purposefully makes each of us, not as an abberation, but with the intent that we all would come into personal relationship with Him. The Bible also teaches that no one has to remain under the power of their sinful inclinations. God has made a way to live righteously before Him and to enjoy fellowship with Him forever. One's birth is not a curse but an opportunity to know and love one's Creator.

Why? Because 6000 or so years ago, a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating a magical fruit. This indiscretion is now your inheritance, and as far as god is concerned, you are equally responsible."

Again, this is a Strawman Argument - a twisting of the actual teachings of the Bible to justify rejecting it. We are not held responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. God will judge each person for their own sin.

you are discouraged from questioning god, and the bible, and the religion in general.

This is just raw ignorance on display here. It is so untrue it is laughable. No faith has ever sustained the kind of criticism, and scrutiny, and debate that Christianity has both from without and within.

god punished adam and eve in the garden of eden, and didn't punish satan

At great cost to Himself, God moved to redeem humanity from the consequences of sin. Satan, however, God will punish in hell for all eternity. He has made no way for Satan ever to escape this fate. Obviously, then, the charge that God has dealt unfairly with Adam and Eve relative to Satan is false.

god allows satan to be evil in the world

And He has offered any who will take it the power to be able to resist Satan. As well, God restrains Satan, never allowing him to unleash the full force of his evilness upon the world.

if god is loving, why does he cast people who don't believe in him to hell? i think this is a fundamental problem.

Because God is also holy and just. Because our sin is always ultimately against God Himself. That God renders such a severe penalty upon our sin should alert us to how incredibly awful the sin we so easily commit truly is.

it is a sin to look at another person with lust, but this is a basic biological function that supposedly god gave us- isnt that a bit hard?

No. It seems to me only a person who has made a practice of sexual lusting would say something like this.

god is supposed to love everyone equally

Says who?

but in the old testament he has favourites: the biblical Hebrews and their descendents, the Jews.

LOL! They are His Chosen People but they were not made so because they were something special, because they were such that God found Himself liking them more than all the other humans He had made. In fact, the record of the OT shows that the Israelites were a wayward and disobedient people and suffered the severe judgment of God many times as a result. God showed them no favoritism in judging their sin, that's for sure!

god sets double standards: we aren't to kill anyone, but he can kill millions.

This is just silly. There is a terrible error in comparison here. We are not God - no where even close. He gives life and sustains and it is His prerogative as the Giver and Sustainer of Life also to take it in whatever manner suits Him.

He says “In your anger, do not sin” and then spends entire chapters ranting about his wrathful vengeance on those who don’t acknowledge him.

This is what is known as a prooftext. It is a verse taken out of context in order that it might be used to say something it really does not say. In fact, the command above does not forbid being angry, only anger that leads to sin. Since God is perfect and His anger is never sinful, He does not contravene His own command. This is one of the lamest objections to the faith I have ever come across.

He says “Love your enemies” and then smites his own enemies at the drop of a hat (with the exception of Satan who inexplicably continues to get a free pass).

More of what has been attempted above. God does in fact love His enemies. But as the Holy Judge of All, those who live in unrepentant, sinful rebellion to Him will eventually experience His holy wrath.

When humans do any of the aforementioned (unless sanctioned by god), then it is sin. When god does those things or tells others to do so, he is moving in “mysterious ways” and we just have to accept it.

Simple-minded protestations. Humans and God are not equal in any way. What applies to us does not apply in the same way, or at all, to Him.

Furthermore, Christians are told to automatically forgive those who wrong them (even if the person guilty of the wrongdoing hasn’t even sought forgiveness), but god only forgives those who beg and plead first.

A lesson or two in basic Christian doctrine is definitely in order here...Sheesh.

i like this quote by epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

THese questions assume that the questioner has the same perfect, omniscient perspective that God has. But this is obviously not the case. The answers the questioner offers to his questions are not the only possible ones and they arise from a comparatively limited knowledge and perspective. To a great degree, the answer to these questions lies in the matter of our free will. If we are to truly be able to choose to love God, we must be truly able not to choose to love Him. From our choice not to love God evil arises.

You would do well to make the effort to better acquaint yourself with the Christian faith. Don't be the ignorant, biased sort your friend appears to be. If the Bible is true, your eternal destiny rests upon what you choose to do in this regard.

Selah.

 

[DreamchildofGod]

Your friend is not 'smart'. He is 'ignorant'
Ignorant to the word of God and the true meaning of it. He chooses to pick and say what he wants but without real knowledge of God.
That is why God is GOD, and we are not. He created us, and not us..Him.
His ways are not our ways
He cannot question God because a clay cannot give commands to the potter.
Why would you need to give him any reply to convince Him?
Up to you to choose what you believe is life. You have free-will.