>>85682960> I said he was evil.>Why?
"If you set up a child to do something and then punish the child when they do it, that's child abuse. In your worldview, the christian god myth is one evil motherfucker.">You asked why it seemed arbitrary who God lends His help to and I explained why.
I didn't actually ask you jack shit. I told you the logical conclusion of believing in an all-knowing apathetic god. You're the one that's doing backflips here trying to cope rather than address the point.
Shoveling all this shit I never said into my mouth is rude you know.>Unless you think they're all just stories with morality lessons>Putting words in my mouth.
Au contraire, note: "the entire point of the OT is man refusing God". If that's why the OT was made, then it's not a historical account, it's just a fucking story. >He offered guidance to His children
Haha, also no. You said: "This is meant to be interpreted that directly interfering in the matters of mankind is folly," YOU said god was a fool for interfering. Like he learned a lesson or something. In case you can't even follow your own argument, he shouldn't have to learn anything, as he already knows everything. >I know what you meant.
That makes it worse when you know what the argument was and you just plain ignore it. Cause you got nothing.>of course the child would be in the wrong in that scenario as well.
Holy shit-balls please never reproduce you evil fucking monster. There's an apparent reason that Christian kids are so fucked up and so quick to ditch the religion. >Adam and Eve weren't "dependents"
They were just dependent on god in every way shape and form and literally the children of god. sure.
Let me try another though. If you put your child in a room with a snake, and you know the snake is going to bite the child, and then the snake bites the child, who is to blame for the snakebite?