You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is the Problem of Evil a coherent argument against the existence of God(s)?
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).[1][2] Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely. Attempts to resolve the question under these contexts have historically been one of the prime concerns of theodicy.
Some responses include the arguments that true free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil, that humans cannot understand God, that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth or evil is the consequence of a fallen world.
There are also many discussions of "evil" and associated "problems" in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[3][4][5] and scientific disciplines such as evolutionary ethics.[6][7] But as usually understood, the "problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.[1][2]
This is known as the riddle of Epicurus and it addresses the problem of evil (natural disasters) for the existence of god. God has the character trait of being loving and caring for his creation, by refuting this trait of his character we refute his credibility of existence.
So malevolence discredits the claim that god is loving and kind. Most Christians would hold to the idea that god is loving and kind, and if your god allows evil to happen and does nothing to stop it he is as bad as the evil he is supposed to oppose. Therefore a kind and loving god would not exist based on this malevolence. It's like if I claimed that I had psychic powers and could predict the lottery, yet i never won the lottery when I tried. The results contradict my claim, so you can conclude my claim was false.
Ok so here are the thoughts that ran through my head as I read this.
1)Why would God prevent evil if evil is how we learn?
2)God is not willing but not malevolent because evil is a nessisary part of life.
3)He isn't willing,see statement #2.
4)He is able but not willing,once again, see statement #2.
We have to remember we cannot put God in a box, he does not think like we do, his thoughts are not our thoughts. We do not have all the information of the world and the hearts of every man on earth like he does. We do not comprehend everthing he understands, that is why he is God.Evil is part of our lives,without it we would not know good. Without evil we couldn't know what good is because it would not be there. It is similar to the phrase, without trial,heartache and unhappiness there would not be happiness. We would never learn and grow if everything in this world was good. Think about the Revelutionary War, without that the United States of America would never have been created. Our forefathers would never have steeped themselves so fully in the study of what freedom is and we would be under the rule of Great Britan. Without evil or bad there is no good. God would never take that knowledge that he gave to Adam and Eve away from us.
Okay so you are saying evil is necessary for us to learn and grow, and that is all fine and good in moderation, I will give you that, evil is necessary for us to distinguish good. But what do you have to say to little Timmy who got cancer and will die at 5 years of age, or 4 year old Juan who was killed in an earthquake. What did they learn from their experience, how did they grow? No other person did this to them, it just happened, and why them? you could say bad luck or coincidence but you religious folk aren't too fond of coincidences now are you. So why would an all powerful and loving god allow this 5 year old, innocent child to die? And these circumstances are by no means isolated incidents, this type of tragic death happens on a daily basis around the world. Now it seems like you are just making excuses for this god of yours. It sounds like a battered wife trying to defend her abusive husband. "Oh he didn't mean to hit me offica, it was ma fault, I just din't have dinner on the table at 6:30 like he likes it, he's warned me several times offica." Either own up and admit your husband is a dick or the much more realistic situation, your husband doesn't exist and terrible things happen in the world because "evil" as we perceive it to be, is natural in the world.
And please stop with the "oh well god is out of our understanding and knows and created everything so his reasoning is exempt from our scorn" crap. If i made the claim to you that I was my own father, and you pointed out that it was biologically and physically impossible for that to happen, I could just say that "us self fathering people are outside of physics and genetics as YOU understand it, but we live by a different set of rules." I would mocked into obscurity and i would deserve it, you cannot exclude god from these arguments simply by retreating to the substance less backup of a lack of "well he is god so he MUST have logic we cannot comprehend."
I think it would be good for you to read the book of job in the bible, not for spiritual reasons nessisarily but because it shows true humility. Trail is also how we show our algence to God. Think about this, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or Mormon as we are often called.
Our first modern prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. went through hell to bring our church to the world. We were driven from state to state in a countary that claimed to have religious freedom, and yet we never let go of our God. We were persecuted and killed for sport. Our leaders were tared and feathered, our members tossed into jail for mearly believeing in the Book of Mormon. Our prophet lost 3 children when they were very young to illness and he was martered in Liberty Jail along with his brother and some other leaders of our church at the time, now years and years later we are a thriveing church with many many memebers world wide because of the sacrifices that Joseph Smith made. Yes it is sad that children and others get cancer or have other illnesses, It makes me very sad but illness is part of life and everyone's situation is different. My older sister died as a baby, I feel sorry that I will never know her,but I take comfort in knowing that God has taken her into his care and she is happy and safe.
It is an argument against the existence of any major world religion's God. But not against the Good spirit in people and life that is manifest only when allowed to be. If not allowed, then evil comes forth.
Verily, the problem of whether a Creator (which may be inherently worthy of being called 'God') exists has become too tied up in specific theological formulations importing characteristics unnecessary to explain anything about such a Creator. But if 'God' is defined by characteristics including 'goodness' and 'active intervention' then this disqualifies the concept of 'God.'
In a purely logical debate, it's rubbish to try to say "why would God allow evil to happen?"
First of all, ya morons, if we were debating on God's existence, we would have to accept that if he did exist, we would NOT understand his true intentions. We're human beings that are limited by the physical realm. God is supposed to be supernatural and powerful and shit. So saying "if God does exist, he's an asshole for letting evil happen" is admitting that you're an ignorant fool who isn't serious about reasoning.
The same goes for "what created God" arguments.
I hate stupid debate tactics by the people who are supposed to be the smarter ones.
You can certainly take the stance that the limited human mind cannot possibly comprehend the mind of an unlimited being. It's a very rational stance. But this if we're to have any serious discussions about God at all, we'll need to hide this idea in one corner of our minds, and just reason about God as best we can.
I'll make an example. Take the theory of skepticism, which states that we know nothing about this world for certain. You might think you know what you look like, where you live, etc, but there's a possibility that you could be deluded. This is a pretty rational stance to take.
But does this mean that it's pointless for us to attempt to gain knowledge? Should we just close down all our schools and universities, because everything that is being taught and discovered may well be false? Should we stop making any kind of decisions, because decisions are based upon beliefs, and any or all of these beliefs we hold may be false?
No. While we should keep a healthy dose of skepticism in our minds, in everyday life we need to act as if we can know what is real and what is not, or else society simply won't be able to function.
The same applies to religious considerations, where the "we can't know anything about God" is something like a localised version of the skepticism argument. Sure, it's good to have that thought somewhere in your mind; it keeps you humble and open-minded. But for practical purposes, when you're debating whether or not God exists, or just discussing or expounding the tenets of any religion that includes belief in an unlimited God, you need to act as if you can attempt to find out at least some things about God.
Otherwise, the philosophers and scientists will have nothing to say about God except "we don't know", the Pope, priests, and pastors will have nothing to say except "we don't know", and the Bible will be replaced by a single line saying: "Your puny mind can't truly know anything about God or what he wants you to do, so there's no point trying to find out. Just sit back and hope that you go to heaven. Good luck."
To me, it would be a good thing if religions admitted that they have no idea on what God is thinking.
That is not the case, however. In pure logic, the assumption that God exists would be followed by the fact that "if God exists, we have no idea on what he's thinking".
The religious make their own rules, and if we're debating religion itself it would apply more to the tactics of God.
But to say "God doesn't exist because evil things happen" or "Even if God does exist, he doesn't care about us because evil things happen" is like saying "I know what God's intentions would be if he existed".
It's intellectually dishonest.
There are more logical reasons for not believing in God. Because bad things happen to good people is not one of them.
I agree with your saying that the most rational stance is "we have no idea how God thinks". But like I argued, skepticism is not a practical stance to take, whether in or outside religion. Unless you subscribe to the school of thought that says we shouldn't attempt to find out anything about God at all (and it doesn't seem like you do, since you said there are some good reasons for not believing in God), you'd need to suspend your skepticism somewhat when debating religious issues.
To say anything at all about God would be intellectually dishonest, if you take intellectual dishonesty to be assuming that you know something then arguing as though you do in fact know it. (Although I don't think this is dishonesty - it's just an omission of the disclaimer that you can't really know this or really know that, an omission that everybody makes all the time and assumes that you will be making too. People don't formulate all their factual sentences like: "I think my name is Ben but I could be wrong", "I think it is currently five o'clock but I could be wrong", "I think the earth is round but I could be wrong", do they?)
Anyway - under your concept of intellectual dishonesty, any argument, logical or evidential, for or against God would be intellectually dishonest, because how can you know that God is limited by natural laws or by logical possibility? It's easy for us to imagine things violating the laws of nature - like Moses parting the Red Sea - so we tend to assume that God is capable of such feats. It's not easy at all for us to imagine things violating the principles of logic, like a circle being square, or God in his omnipotence being able to create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. But just because we humans with our limited minds can't imagine a being that transcends logic doesn't mean this being does not exist in some way. Indeed, I think this is the very reason that God, if such a being exists, is ultimately inaccessible to us: he crosses every boundary of human intellect.
The argument from evil cannot ever be a infallible argument against God. But in this respect it is no worse than any other argument that concerns God, as they are all based on either logic or empirical evidence, neither of which are infallible when applied to God. As these fallible arguments are the best that we humans have got, they're what we must work with. Whoever it was that said we should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out, has it right: there are just some things, like skepticism, that we have to close our minds against, if we are to say or do anything useful.
I don't mind using the argument of "evil existing" to argue against the validity of a Christian or Islamic God. At the same time, arguing against an entire religion requires much more than just "why is there evil?" many priests are taught from the beginning to answer with intellectually dishonest bullshit, but at the same time, it's bullshit that is almost impossible to argue against with mere "why does evil exist" rational. you need to understand a religion and understand WHY faith is evident in order to be able to start your argument against it all. You have to know so much about it that if you were explaining it to someone, they would at first think that you are a believer.
But for the basic idea of God or a deity, saying that "a deity doesn't exist because evil exists" is a fallacy. Nothing to it.
The argument from evil doesn't pretend to be able to defeat every tenet of the Christian religion - or every tenet of any other religion, for that matter. It only critiques one thing: the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being (a being whose existence espoused by a number of schools of theological thought), arguing that the existence of such a being would be inconsistent with known facts about the world. In this respect, it is the same as pretty much any other argument concerning the concept "God".
Let me ask it this way: Why is it a fallacy to say that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being cannot exist if evil exists and to provide supporting arguments? What makes such an argument a fallacy, other than the fact that you can't really know what something (e.g. God) is like? And if this fact is all that you're basing your claim of fallacy on, would you then say that every other argument that falls prey to this is also a fallacy? Would it be a fallacy for me to argue that children should eat their vegetables for the sake of their health, because I can't really know that vegetables are good for their health?
Because you're claiming that if God exists, he would HAVE TO BE a merciful, personal, caring God and therefore, an argument like "evil coexists with God" is merely an elementary tactic for Atheists who are afraid of reasoning.
It's actually a lot more simple than some will try to make it.
Well, that's actually not how the argument from evil goes - or at least, it's not how someone who is serious about the argument would state it. The argument doesn't run: "If God exists, then he is omnibenevolent." Rather, omnibenevolence is one of the characteristics that are inherent in the definition of God as used in this argument. The most basic form of this argument runs: "If God exists and is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then there will be no evil. There is evil, therefore there is no God who is omni-all-of-the-above." The argument from evil is only a workable argument against a God who is conceived as being omnibenevolent.
Of course, due to the limitations of human knowledge, we cannot know whether or not God (if he exists) is omnibenevolent or not, but for the purposes of argument we assume that we can know some things about God. For the purpsoses of every argument we have to assume that we can know some things about the topic of argument, or we will never be able to say anything.
As stated, while you can use evil as an example as to why MAYBE God is not omni-all-that-shit, it is not "a coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".
I agree that it's not an argument against the existence of God by every definition that religious people have come up with (it'd be an extraordinary argument if it managed to cover such a wide base). But it is an argument against a God who is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. Since this is a definition that a significant number of religious people accept, it's a genuine anti-God argument. It's just not anti-every-concept-of-God.
Definitely, there are people who don't think God is all that powerful, or all that good, etc. But the majority of modern day Christians will agree with a definition of God as being all powerful, all knowing, and absolutely good; for these people the argument from evil does pose problems. The debate then usually centres on what a truly good God would do - the most popular theistic argument is that God allows evil because it is a necessary consequence of free will, and a good God should allow free will.
First of all, ya morons, if we were debating on God's existence, we would have to accept that if he did exist, we would NOT understand his true intentions. We're human beings that are limited by the physical realm. God is supposed to be supernatural and powerful and shit. So saying "if God does exist, he's an asshole for letting evil happen" is admitting that you're an ignorant fool who isn't serious about reasoning.
You missed the underlying point. If a god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then evil cannot exist. It's a matter of logic. The converse is true: if evil exist, said god could not exist.
The question is "Is the problem of Evil a coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".
This does not say anything about a merciful or caring God. Merely the existence of a deity.
Right, but it follows with:
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).
As stated, I am talking about "the existence of God(s)".
The debate description merely gets specific ON SOME POINTS that will be brought up during debate.
Even so, it all doesn't matter. Unless you understand a religion up to a point where others will believe that YOU believe in it (when describing it), you will not be able to debunk a religion.
As stated, I am talking about "the existence of God(s)".
The debate description merely gets specific ON SOME POINTS that will be brought up during debate.
Even so, it all doesn't matter. Unless you understand a religion up to a point where others will believe that YOU believe in it (when describing it), you will not be able to debunk a religion.
Right, but don't you think that when discussing god you should frame it within the debate topic?
My stance stands. While it's possible that MAYBE someone has a point when pointing out all the omnis and if they can be true as characteristics of God, it is not a "coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".
You seem to have omitted a number of concepts in your argument:
1. If a god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then evil cannot exist.
On the contrary, evil can exist. I fail to recall at any place in the bible where it says God is the Universe's police officer. He is the judge, when the evil doers have passed on, God will judge those individuals and punish them. He will not stop them, nor does it say anywhere in the bible that he will.
2. If evil exists, said god could not exist.
If evil exists, it is the product of the free will endowed on humanity, not by "choice" of God. God gave humanity free will and the ability to choose; if humans decide to choose evil, (hypothetically) God will not stop them, he will simply punish them once they have passed on.
1. You failed to considered the meaning of omnibenevolent, and what that means when combined with the two other properties. The bible is irrelevant to the logic of combining those three properties.
2. Free will is an absurd concept. Further more, punishment for such things(especially the type god is typically said to enforce) is not an act of a Omnibenevolent god.
The definition of "Omnibenevolence" is as follows:
All-loving, or infinitely good, regarding an individual's persona or character, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. It's use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This triad is used especially with the Christian god, Yahweh.
The definition of "Omniscient" is "all knowing and ever wise."
Likewise, the definition of "Omnipotent" is "almighty, all powerful with unstaggering force."
These definitions are provided per "The Oxford Dictionary of English", 1989.
I believe it is you, sir, who has failed to consider these three properties in conjunction. The bible stated what God is; omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Since the information on God strictly comes from the bible, it is the only logical reference that is relevant to combining these properties.
Simply because God is all knowing, all powerful and infinitely good does not compel him to restrict human liberty, which would be the act of a janus God. Even if humans "choose" to behave in absurdly malicious and insidious manners, God will not confront them and prohibit their will. The presence of so called "evil" is not a viable argument against the Judeo-Christian God.
If God were to stand idly by and watch a man rape a little girl, it is clear how most atheists would consider this "impotence" as "evil" and contradictory to his professed "omnipotence."
However, God is unwilling to dictate his "creation's" actions and thus waits to judge those individuals. If human life on this side was perfect, why would there need to be a "heaven"? The scriptures state that this life is necessary to judge and test our reactions and contributions in a form of "weeding out" those who are most unsavoury and insidious.
Are courts of law considered heinous for sentencing hardened criminals guilty of murder in the first degree? Not likely. Those individuals are guilty of their crimes and must pay for them.
The source which states that god has those three properties is irrelevant to the analyzes of them.
Given the power to stop evil, is it good to allow evil to occur? For example, it is good for me to watch over a man raping a women when I hold a gun, or should I wait till he is finished to shot him?
It holds no benefit to punish someone after their death, in life it hold a benefit to imprison people because it isolates them from committing similar acts, and grants time for them to change. Punishment after death only holds loses, and no benefit. There is nothing good in it.
Why bother creating those in need of weeding out? Especially if you are ominiscient, and omnipowerful. you would have full knowledge of the evil they will impose on others, it is no different than pulling a trigger of a gun to someone's head and saying, "hey the bullet had a chance of being a dud".
Was it "good" for Switzerland to declare themselves "neutral" in the early 19th century, progressing through the World Wars? They stood by idly while Nazis tortured and annihilated Jewish people. After the war they assisted the allies persecute German war criminals.
Neutrality is neither good nor bad. It is exactly that, neutral.
As for you, a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-omnibenevolent, single mortal, standing by as a man commits a terrible crime on another human being is not equal to an entity that knows the products and outcomes of this act and everything thereafter.
Hypothetically speaking, if the bible was true and there was a heaven and a God, the benefit of punishing one with an eternity of hell for what they had committed during their short time in this life is obvious; it shows them, finally, that they were cruel and unnecessarily malicious. It gives them an eternity to consider their crimes and the atrocities they had inflicted on others.
In life it hold a benefit to imprison people because it isolates them from committing similar acts, and grants time for them to change.
In life, yes it does benefit the individual in this manner. However, are you ignoring 25 years - natural life sentences? I don't see how this sentence would allow an offender time to re-integrate into society. Especially since they won't be re-integrating.
Why bother creating those in need of "weeding out"? Why not just create those that will be admirable?
If there is a God, I am not him. Thus, I do not know. However, there are many possible reasons, such as:
1. The hope that those "evil" individuals will change and regret their actions. God is still capable of "hope", no matter how powerful or wise.
2. The implementation of unsavoury events to test individual's reactions. is it impossible for a man to test the loyalty of his beloved woman, knowing that she would prove unfaithful?
3. If God is all powerful, would he not have the ability to surprise himself? Could he not allow humans the ability to "change" their destiny?
When the Police know an individual is about to commit a crime, they do not arrest them immediately. They conduct "sting" operations and allow the offender to incriminate themselves; just in case the offender does not commit the crime.
The existence of evil is not an adequate argument against the existence of an all knowing, all powerful, infinitely good entity. There is very little evidence for or against the existence of God, and none conclusive. If God were real, he could not be explained by even the most brilliant humans, nor could he be disproven. If God isn't real, what do you really have to lose? You've lived a good life, helped many people and enjoyed your time.
Either way, I don't think God is as menacing and spiteful as the bible says, nor do I believe you must have faith in him to gain access to heaven. If you do good deeds and appreciate your fellow man, I doubt you will have any problems in life or death.
Indeed it is not, and a God who isn't omnibenevolent would not fall prey to the argument from evil.
But the argument from evil doesn't attempt to show that God must be omnibenevolent. Rather, omnibenevolence is one of the assumptions that is made of God, along with the other omnis. And this is a pretty reasonable assumption to make, since adherents of the big three monotheistic religions generally do consider their God to be omnibenevolent.
Most religions, mine included, subscribe to the belief that God gave mankind free will. WE choose evil. God does not condone it, but he does forgive it.
Then god still created humans capable of free will and choosing evil. If our biology is at fault for our flaws, and god is at fault for our biology, then god would be responsible for our actions since he gave us the ability to choose evil.
That does not even make sense...We are not perfect beings,we will not be perfect until we are take into God's arms once more. God made us imprefect because he sent us here to learn. If we were perfect then there would be no need for learning or to be here.
If you were a parent and give a child an AK-47 and tell him to run free and do whatever he wants, and he shoots another child without realizing the implications who do you blame? Exactly, you would blame the parent who handed the kid a fully loaded AK and told him to run free. Was that event tragic, yes. Was it preventable, yes. But what do you have to say for the poor little bugger that got shot. You can call free will whatever you want, call it a curse, call it a gift, but whatever it is, according to you, god gave it to us. God still gave this child the ability to kill and allowed the actions of one person, to destroy the innocent life of another. My question is how can you reconcile the consequences of death for the innocent child with an all loving god. How could he allow that child to die in a situation that in no way reflected a free choice of his own. How does this child learn or grow from his experience with evil?
You didn't real the Bible at all did you? Adam and Eve were made without evil to begin with. Eve was tricked into having the knowledge of good and evil by the serpent, who is Satan. Understand the beliefs you critique before you make a completely off-the-wall comparison.
A all knowing, all powerful, creator god, created the serpent knowing that it would trick eve; ie god introduced evil into the world even if he didn't originally create the world with evil in it.
A god with such properties is responsible for everything.
Again, misunderstanding of Christian beliefs. God created Lucifer, who was the angel responsible for leading the worship of God in Heaven. He was a musician, un-matched. Lucifer, like all Angels, was given free-will, a mind of his own. Using that free-will, Lucifer began to be too prideful in his work and began to praise himself above God. For this, God rebuked him, but Lucifer held contempt for that and fell from Grace, taking many with him. When God created Adam and Eve, Lucifer's first idea was to screw that up.
God does not make evil decisions, despite those decisions already existing. That's right, evil is NOT an aspect of the God who created the universe, but a choice, a choice that He had but never took. This is proven in scripture through the life of Jesus, who was tempted, as Adam and Eve were, in the desert during a fast. Jesus, however, refused to give in to that temptation. Jesus, being the phsycial manifestation of God, was tempted by evil- so too was God. To say that God created evil is silly. Evil is an IDEA, an idea that already existed, the same as good. Evil is a choice, not a power one bestowes upon someone, not a trait one can pass by way of creation or biology, it is a result of freed mind, a consciousness that is capable of making decisions- rational or irrational.
Yes but the point is that our free will is at fault for evil (according to you), and God is at fault for creating us, therefore god still created a being capable of choosing evil and was therefore creating the possibility for evil. According to you, God is the creator of the universe, nature, which encompasses everything in existence including evil which is an idea used to describe when an action is negative in nature of against a moral code. If God created everything, he is not exempt from being accredited with evil which is the by product of free will. You can't exclude God by placing the blame on his creation, he still created it. If God is responsible for everything in existence, the entire universe, why do you only credit him with the good? If God created everything then he is still the author of evil.
Consider this: God created us in his own image. That means many things, including our capability to create things (hence the domain name). He gave us a free mind, a free will, and the ability to create. God lives in perfection, creating nothing against himself "A house divided amongst itself cannot stand." (Lincoln was quoting scripture when he said that, by the way)
The ability to think and create of our volition. Why would he do that? The answer goes beyond Genesis and into the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus instructs the crowd on the mountain to love their enemies. Challenging them with this revelation (paraphrase): "If you love those who love you, what have you done? Even the worst sinners do that." Check it out, we have the choice to do evil things, but the greater moment is when one has the capacity for evil and overcomes it, choosing God over something else. God blessed us with a choice, and gave us the ability to create, as he created.
To say that humans cannot create on their own is not even scripturally correct. I'm sure even you believe you can formulate an idea. Those ideas that are not in accordance with the nature of God (in other words, those devices made by man that are wicked in nature) are what encompasses the concept of evil. Yes God created the universe and everything in it, but he also created us with the ability to create. Evil was not his invention, but our own.
I agree whole heartedly with this comment. God gave us the amazing gift of acency, to do with our lives as we wish to. That does not mean he is ok with the bad choices we make, but he does understand that we are human and make mistakes, through his son we can be forgiven again.
it is because we have many gods that we bow to that have one origin,and that is Satan. Those gods give us fear,and that fear causes us to amass armies to try, and pummel whoever we think is a threat or any reason we can think of. That fear incarcerates humans putting them in bondage. That fear persecutes humans who are different too. Those are gods giving fear so we think we have to verbally, and physically strike out at the sexualities.That striking out makes humans think a human sacrifice is necessary,but the God of all that Man did not make gives good gifts,and love,and this planet,and eternity is against that sort of thing. That is not Christian at all. This means evil is confusing us with many gods,and the USA flag a false god - idol too. Two flags have no blood on them. They are the gay,and zoosexual flags. No flag should be bowed down to or sung to.We should give all Glory to the one who made the food for us on our table,and the beauty before your eyes,and the love that is bestowed on you in loving humans,and the gift of Jesus to save you loving all to explore the universe like humans have alway dreamt of being able to do,and literally having star trek come alive. imagine that. That loving God of love that we cannot comprehend is who we should worship,and shine it to whoever no matter what,and save the soul whenever the body that dies. Christs return will be far greater than anything you can even imagine, How could anyone throw that away?
