I still don't understand what you mean. I don't know what evidence you want me to compare to what passages of the Bible? Does it all have to fit or just some bits? Is it something that any sane and half intelligent person cannot fail to see? If it is then why doesn't everyone see it? If it is not, then how is it fair to punish them?
Can you give me some examples of of the evidence around us that fits the Bible.
Which is a different question. You asked how to determine what is true. I answered that. I'm not going to try to prove Christianity to you. Especially when evidence seems currently irrelevant to your decision-making.
You lost me a long time ago and I keep trying to understand - I really do - but I just can't make any sense of what you are saying.
I don't really believe that at all. If it were true, you would stick to a single question and then follow it through. Instead of doing that, you ask a question, I answer it and then you ask a completely different question and say 'how does your explanation answer this question?' It doesn't because that's a different question.
You say that you are repelled by an image of a God that judges people who reject him. I explain how that makes sense to me in the context of my experience of life and, in fact, doesn't repel me at all. Then you ask a different question about God killing babies. Which, of course, I have already answered previously.
What is transparent is that this is little more than a continuous bait and switch tactic to avoid any kind of discussion at all. We go in circles because that is what you are much happier doing than coming to a conclusion on any issue at all.
The same kind of evasion is evident in your desire to avoid describing yourself as attached to any view at all. You like to say it's because you don't want to be labelled, but the reality is that you are simply afraid to defend what you believe in on rational grounds.
This lack of interest in real discussion is also evident in the language you use. A person who really wants to know if Christianity is true doesn't begin their search by using words like 'bloodthirsty', 'psycho' or 'repellent'. It's really no different to the anti-muslim polemist who talked about the pedo-prophet all the time and pretends to be interested in understanding Islam.
Isn't your belief based on subjective decisions by you - just as my disbelief is based on subjective decisions by me?
All beliefs are subjective because they happen inside your head. The question is whether they can be shown to reference anything external. Your evaluation of God's behaviour has no such external reference point.
You somehow rationalise what I see as a contradiction between claims of love and murdering babies.
No I don't. But your deliberate misrepresentation of my words reveals your motive quite clearly.
But how can you tell me that my decisions are wrong/emotional/irrational/subjective or whatever... and yours are not.
Because that is what the arguments you have presented actually are! Mine may also be, but that doesn't mean that somehow an emotional argument becomes a rational one. If you want to reject Christianity on emotional grounds be my guest but just don't claim that it has any relevance to whether it is true or not.
If the God of the Bible existed (which of course I do not believe he does) then I would be damned.
If you were dead, which you aren't.
I wouldn't be happy for you to be damned - but you are happy for this God to do whatever he decides
Absolutely. I trust his judgement far more than my own. But no, that doesn't mean that I am 'happy for you to be damned'.
It is illogical to accept this violence and call your God a God of "Love".
No it isn't but I'm not going to rehearse the arguments again.
The trinity is illogical
And is, ironically, strongly tied to the idea of God being a God of love. So, no surprises in this claim. Of course the trinity isn't 'three gods in one' - another mispresentation in your video targeted to achieve your rhetorical aims.
I see no consistency or logic in your arguments. You are actually the one who seems to be emotionally attached to a belief in a God that lacks real evidence - is illogical, inconsistent and indefensibly bloodthirsty.
Possibly I am. It's just surprising then that you haven't been able to provide a single rational reason why he doesn't exist.
But I am definitely done discussing with you.
Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"