
Which of the following names have objective credence in historical reality?
A. Abraham
B. Moses
C. Jesus
D. Polyphemus (The Cyclopes in Homer’s Odyssey)
Here's what I don't understand. When pressed reasonable religious folks concede that faith is what justifies their notion of god. But they all spend sooo much time learning and regurgitating all these biblical arguments that "prove" god. It seems to me if you're going to invoke faith, just stop there. No need to reason it out or rationalize. In fact a more consistent position would be to spout some gibberish then end with "therefore god!" Am I wrong?
According to the researchers...overarching beliefs about the dangerousness of the world can influence mental well-being: "Belief in a punitive God... facilitates threat assessments that the world is dangerous and even that God poses a threat of harm, thereby increasing psychiatric symptomology." LINK
![]() |
Alexander Mosaic at Pompeii (ca. 100 BCE?) |
If you trust God no matter how he acts, then you are in an abusive relationship. The issue isn't whether God could have good reasons for allowing suffering. Serial killers have reasons that satisfy themselves. The issue is whether he could have included less suffering in the world. If he could have and just didn't, then he is sadistic.
If we say God loves humanity no matter how he treats us, then love means nothing. If we can't judge God to be evil, then we can't judge him to be good, either. LINK.