Challenge for Christians

[Thumpalumpacus]

Phew!  <mops brow>

[bandit4god]

Here we go...
1. Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?
In this and other responses, "God" is logically equivalent with "a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and thus perfectly free."  God created humans with the capacity to choose good or evil.  With all men having chosen evil, God's goodness necessitated separation from himself.  This separation can be eliminated completely by the sacrifice of One who could accept the punishment of evil as a proxy.  Isn't it cool that the day Jesus was crucified (Passover) was the EXACT day that the Jews escaped from Egypt?
2. Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?
The crucifixion is important in that it paid the price for man's evil, but the more important element for faith is the resurrection.  Throughout the whole Bible (40 different authors!), the same theme emerges of faith being credited to the believer as righteousness.  Through faith in the free gift of grace God has given, Jesus's sacrifice is imputed to the believer!
3. Is it reasonable and just that many people are born in places where the likelihood of their coming to believe the Christian creed is almost nill? If so, how is it reasonable and just?
Christians differ on this one.  Jesus said to the Pharisees that those who have not heard the truth are not held as culpable as those who have.  You're asking the right questions here, but my answers and your knowledge thereof puts you in the danger category.  Repent!
4. Is it reasonable and sane to accept the Christian creed while rejecting the Muslim or Buddhist ones? If so, how is it reasonable and sane?
All religions (save one) require that you do activities to get spiritual blessings.  There are buddhists right now in Nepal prostrating themselves around a mountain one body length at a time!  The orthodox Christian faith (many troubling fringe sects notwithstanding) is the only one that suggests FAITH ALONE saves your soul.
5. Are the myriad varieties of suffering reasonable and just under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God? If so, how are they reasonable and just?
Swinburne did a good job with this, and I can't give it a full treatment here.  In short, for a "varsity" universe to exist where the fullest measure of good could happen, some measure of suffering would also have to be possible.  A "padded room" universe would prevent many goods from being possible.  I acknowledge this must read as callous and insensitive to the rape victim or cancer patient, but I can't ignore the high volume of quadrapalegics who claim that they wouldn't trade the debilitating incident that crippled them because it set their life on a path that led to a greater good than the path their life was on before the accident.

[Inevitable Droid]

Here we go...

In my responses, I'm going to be taking little pieces of what you wrote and responding with questions of why or how.  The staccato rhythm of this may acquire a tone that could imply some sort of sarcastic, impatient, or belligerent attitude.  I say in advance, therefore, that I disavow sarcasm, impatience, or belligerence.  I am merely availing myself of the simplest and easiest way of asking you the questions I want to ask you.  Whether I am lazy or efficient is open to interpretation.

1. Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?
In this and other responses, "God" is logically equivalent with "a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and thus perfectly free."  God created humans with the capacity to choose good or evil.

Why?

With all men having chosen evil, God's goodness necessitated separation from himself.

Why?  Also, what does separation from himself mean and by what mechanism was it accomplished??

This separation can be eliminated completely by the sacrifice of One who could accept the punishment of evil as a proxy.

How?

Isn't it cool that the day Jesus was crucified (Passover) was the EXACT day that the Jews escaped from Egypt?

Not to me.  I wish the poor fellow had lived to a ripe old age.  That assumes he really existed, of course.

2. Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?
The crucifixion is important in that it paid the price for man's evil, but the more important element for faith is the resurrection.

Why?

Throughout the whole Bible (40 different authors!), the same theme emerges of faith being credited to the believer as righteousness.

Why is faith righteous?  Or are you saying faith is credited as righteousness because the merit of the Crucifixion is imputed to the believer?  If the latter, why is the merit of the Crucifixion imputed to the believer?  Why does God do that?

3. Is it reasonable and just that many people are born in places where the likelihood of their coming to believe the Christian creed is almost nill? If so, how is it reasonable and just?
Christians differ on this one.  Jesus said to the Pharisees that those who have not heard the truth are not held as culpable as those who have.  You're asking the right questions here, but my answers and your knowledge thereof puts you in the danger category.  Repent!

Why are those who haven't heard the truth culpable at all?  Also, why is reality constrained in such a manner that it's even possible to not hear the truth?  Even today it's still possible in some remote areas, and five hundred years ago it was actually quite likely in a great many places.

4. Is it reasonable and sane to accept the Christian creed while rejecting the Muslim or Buddhist ones? If so, how is it reasonable and sane?
All religions (save one) require that you do activities to get spiritual blessings.  There are buddhists right now in Nepal prostrating themselves around a mountain one body length at a time!  The orthodox Christian faith (many troubling fringe sects notwithstanding) is the only one that suggests FAITH ALONE saves your soul.

How is it reasonable and sane to accept salvation by faith alone when all religions except one require that we do activities?  Aren't the odds in favor of salvation by works?    Incidentally, two of the sects of Christianity that claim works are needed are Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy.  They're pretty big.  Most theistic humans, by far, claim salvation must be won by works.  Why gamble on the minority opinion?

5. Are the myriad varieties of suffering reasonable and just under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God? If so, how are they reasonable and just?
Swinburne did a good job with this, and I can't give it a full treatment here.  In short, for a "varsity" universe to exist where the fullest measure of good could happen, some measure of suffering would also have to be possible.  A "padded room" universe would prevent many goods from being possible.

Why?

I acknowledge this must read as callous and insensitive to the rape victim or cancer patient, but I can't ignore the high volume of quadrapalegics who claim that they wouldn't trade the debilitating incident that crippled them because it set their life on a path that led to a greater good than the path their life was on before the accident.

Source?  I have trouble imagining a quadriplegic who wouldn't instantly choose to never have had to endure being crippled.  Certainly now, given their current condition, they find happiness wherever they can, and one place they find it is in the opportunity to provide the good to others.  But to reject the offer of never having lost the functioning of their legs?  Source, please.

[Gawen]

Here we go...
1. Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?
In this and other responses, "God" is logically equivalent with "a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and thus perfectly free."  

If it were necessary that Jesus be crucified then cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

"God" is logically equivalent with "a person without a body (i.e., a spirit)

Unsunstantiated assertion.

"God"...is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and thus perfectly free."

Unsubstantiated assertions.

God created humans with the capacity to choose good or evil.

Unsubstantiated assertion

With all men having chosen evil

Unsubstantiated assertion

God's goodness necessitated separation from himself.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Bold in red denotes that "God" is not perfectly free.

This separation can be eliminated completely by the sacrifice of One who could accept the punishment of evil as a proxy.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Also, denotes that "God" is not perfect, not perfectly good, and a chicken shit.

Isn't it cool that the day Jesus was crucified (Passover) was the EXACT day that the Jews escaped from Egypt?

Good grief.

2. Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?

Ask some Jews. They'll tell you why the "sacrifice" is invalid.

The crucifixion is important in that it paid the price for man's evil,

Man didn't ask for a price to be paid on our behalf. There was no sacrifice anyway.

but the more important element for faith is the resurrection.

It is important for you to suspend your critical thinking skills and believe through faith that the laws of physics were suspended or changed nearly 2000 years ago.

Throughout the whole Bible (40 different authors!), the same theme emerges of faith being credited to the believer as righteousness.

Yes, Not questioning faith is righteousness.

Through faith in the free gift of grace God has given, Jesus's sacrifice is imputed to the believer!

Yes, isn't it wonderful that an imperfect god must must fix his failings and then blame it on his failings for why he didn't or more importantly, can't fix them?


Is it reasonable and sane, as you ask?

No.

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Inevitable Droid, the recursive quote structure mystified me so I took the easy way out and put your questions at the head of my responses.

1. Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?
In this and other responses, "God" is logically equivalent with "a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and thus perfectly free."  God created humans with the capacity to choose good or evil.

Why?  One perspective is that humanly free agents can produce a type of good that other creatures cannot--acknowledgment of God's glory by choice.

With all men having chosen evil, God's goodness necessitated separation from himself.

Why?  What does separation from himself mean and by what mechanism was it accomplished??  During life, this is where what many philosophers call the Problem of the Hiddenness of God.  He's not sitting on a throne in Times Square, Jerusalem, Mt Everest, etc. because we're ruined by evil and he is set apart or "holy".

This separation can be eliminated completely by the sacrifice of One who could accept the punishment of evil as a proxy.

How?  It makes possible that those who have faith in the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection holy again, like him.

2. Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?
The crucifixion is important in that it paid the price for man's evil, but the more important element for faith is the resurrection.

Why?  It wasn't enough for things to "break even" and leave mankind in the same state as when Adam and Eve were first created.  The resurrection breaks the hold that sin and death have over mankind for those who repent and put their faith in Jesus.

Throughout the whole Bible (40 different authors!), the same theme emerges of faith being credited to the believer as righteousness.

Why is faith righteous?  Or are you saying faith is credited as righteousness because the merit of the Crucifixion is imputed to the believer?  If the latter, why is the merit of the Crucifixion imputed to the believer?  Why does God do that?  Love.  While God is hidden from us because of his holiness, he loves those who acknowledge who he is because it hearkens back to the reason he created us at all: to freely choose him.

3. Is it reasonable and just that many people are born in places where the likelihood of their coming to believe the Christian creed is almost nill? If so, how is it reasonable and just?
Christians differ on this one.  Jesus said to the Pharisees that those who have not heard the truth are not held as culpable as those who have.  You're asking the right questions here, but my answers and your knowledge thereof puts you in the danger category.  Repent!

Why are those who haven't heard the truth culpable at all?  Also, why is reality constrained in such a manner that it's even possible to not hear the truth?  Despite the direct hiddenness of God, humans can see the natural world and make an indirect god-or-no-god decision.  Dudes on an island tribe are culpable only for what they know--and, interestingly, their natural reaction to seeing a sunset is often one of wonder at a power beyond their own.

4. Is it reasonable and sane to accept the Christian creed while rejecting the Muslim or Buddhist ones? If so, how is it reasonable and sane?
All religions (save one) require that you do activities to get spiritual blessings.  There are buddhists right now in Nepal prostrating themselves around a mountain one body length at a time!  The orthodox Christian faith (many troubling fringe sects notwithstanding) is the only one that suggests FAITH ALONE saves your soul.

How is it reasonable and sane to accept salvation by faith alone when all religions except one require that we do activities?  Aren't the odds in favor of salvation by works?  Not the questions I'd expect from you, I'm surprised at these--well done!  When I was serving in Iraq, our bases had only port-o-johns to use for latrine facilities.  It took exactly 2.5 minutes after they were installed for the inside walls to be covered with words.  When people were all alone and could write anything they wanted, what do you think they chose to write?  Obscenities, insults, and other general filth.  People may do altruistic things here or there, but we can never DO enough to outdo the evil in our hearts.  It took someone else, a rescuer.  And yes, this path is narrow and those who choose it are few.  Please repent!

5. Are the myriad varieties of suffering reasonable and just under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God? If so, how are they reasonable and just?
Swinburne did a good job with this, and I can't give it a full treatment here.  In short, for a "varsity" universe to exist where the fullest measure of good could happen, some measure of suffering would also have to be possible.  A "padded room" universe would prevent many goods from being possible.

Why?  Choose your hero.  Would the actions of Gandhi, Lincoln, MLK, and others have been possible in a world without the evils against which they strove?

I acknowledge this must read as callous and insensitive to the rape victim or cancer patient, but I can't ignore the high volume of quadrapalegics who claim that they wouldn't trade the debilitating incident that crippled them because it set their life on a path that led to a greater good than the path their life was on before the accident.

Source?  
1) http://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bry ... MjAG2-Fzg=
2) http://www.joniearecksontadastory.com/

[Ihateyoumike]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hold on .... Did bandit4god just have an argument with himself? I didn't read all of it cause I was laughing in my head too hard.

[legs laney]

Also in regards to the animal suffering, I will follow up with a response this evening or on Wednesday and I don't think it is an issue that should be sidestepped, it's obviously something important to consider.

the problem this person is having is he can't "find" his answer.  no one has asked him that particular question yet.  he has not been "programmed" with the right answer.  he hasn't been able to find it on the internet or in his little book yet.  give him some time to ask around his circle of friends and he'll give you the appropriate one and believe in it 110% no matter the source nor how illogical.  and this is how he handles all of these dilemmas of faith and why the illogical thinking continues to get crazier and crazier.  

i also think it's totally clear achronos doesn't know the meaning of the words omnipotent and omniscient.
the bible has been manipulated by human beings and can't be trusted; i will not be mislead by it.

[legs laney]

Here we go...
1. Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?
In this and other responses, "God" is logically equivalent with "a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and thus perfectly free."  God created humans with the capacity to choose good or evil.  With all men having chosen evil, God's goodness necessitated separation from himself.  This separation can be eliminated completely by the sacrifice of One who could accept the punishment of evil as a proxy.  Isn't it cool that the day Jesus was crucified (Passover) was the EXACT day that the Jews escaped from Egypt?
2. Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?
The crucifixion is important in that it paid the price for man's evil, but the more important element for faith is the resurrection.  Throughout the whole Bible (40 different authors!), the same theme emerges of faith being credited to the believer as righteousness.  Through faith in the free gift of grace God has given, Jesus's sacrifice is imputed to the believer!
3. Is it reasonable and just that many people are born in places where the likelihood of their coming to believe the Christian creed is almost nill? If so, how is it reasonable and just?
Christians differ on this one.  Jesus said to the Pharisees that those who have not heard the truth are not held as culpable as those who have.  You're asking the right questions here, but my answers and your knowledge thereof puts you in the danger category.  Repent!
4. Is it reasonable and sane to accept the Christian creed while rejecting the Muslim or Buddhist ones? If so, how is it reasonable and sane?
All religions (save one) require that you do activities to get spiritual blessings.  There are buddhists right now in Nepal prostrating themselves around a mountain one body length at a time!  The orthodox Christian faith (many troubling fringe sects notwithstanding) is the only one that suggests FAITH ALONE saves your soul.
5. Are the myriad varieties of suffering reasonable and just under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God? If so, how are they reasonable and just?
Swinburne did a good job with this, and I can't give it a full treatment here.  In short, for a "varsity" universe to exist where the fullest measure of good could happen, some measure of suffering would also have to be possible.  A "padded room" universe would prevent many goods from being possible.  I acknowledge this must read as callous and insensitive to the rape victim or cancer patient, but I can't ignore the high volume of quadrapalegics who claim that they wouldn't trade the debilitating incident that crippled them because it set their life on a path that led to a greater good than the path their life was on before the accident.

i have a question.  why did jesus have to die for our sins?  why can't we just do whatever we want and offer up a nice little virgen every now and then.  would that suffice god's thirst for human carnage?

[Inevitable Droid]

One perspective is that humanly free agents can produce a type of good that other creatures cannot--acknowledgment of God's glory by choice.

Good for whom?  I guess for God.  I tried to imagine myself caring what amoebas thought of me - and weirdly, not to mention pathetically, I think I would actually enjoy it if amoebas wiggled around ecstatically whenever they sensed my gigantic presence.  So what I get out of that is, God created created man for God's pleasure; I.e., to be God's appreciative audience.  OK.  But that isn't omnibenevolent.  He cares more about himself than he cares about me or you.  This makes him similar to my previously suggested experimenter God, for whom you and I are guinea pigs.  Or to Robert E. Howard's fight promoter God, Crom, for whom you and I are gladiators in a worldwide colliseum.  All three of these guys are more plausible than somebody omnibenevolent, given our planet's relentless capacity for brutality.

During life, this is where what many philosophers call the Problem of the Hiddenness of God.  He's not sitting on a throne in Times Square, Jerusalem, Mt Everest, etc. because we're ruined by evil and he is set apart or "holy".

This is the doctrine that God can't tolerate moral imperfection in his proximity.  That word can't contradicts omnipotence.  Such is the pattern with all Christian theology.  Inevitably either omnipotence, or omnibenevolence, or omniscience is contradicted, in order to make the Jesus story seem plausible.

It makes possible that those who have faith in the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection holy again, like him.

Because God sees not our sin, but Christ's merit.  This non-seeing of our sin contradicts omniscience.

It wasn't enough for things to "break even" and leave mankind in the same state as when Adam and Eve were first created.  The resurrection breaks the hold that sin and death have over mankind for those who repent and put their faith in Jesus.

When Adam and Eve were first created, they were without sin.  Why isn't that enough?  Presumably the idea is to make us better than Adam and Eve, which would have to mean, we won't be susceptible to sin.  But we all are, even believers.  This contradicts omnipotence.

While God is hidden from us because of his holiness, he loves those who acknowledge who he is because it hearkens back to the reason he created us at all: to freely choose him.

But believing and loving are two different things.  Or at least I think they are.  How do you define love?  Are you saying that believing in the Resurrection and loving Jesus are identical phenomena?

Despite the direct hiddenness of God, humans can see the natural world and make an indirect god-or-no-god decision.  Dudes on an island tribe are culpable only for what they know--and, interestingly, their natural reaction to seeing a sunset is often one of wonder at a power beyond their own.

Are those dudes saved?  Are they heavenbound?  Does awe at a sunset return those dudes to a state where God can tolerate their proximity?

Not the questions I'd expect from you, I'm surprised at these--well done!

I've studied Christian theology extensively.

People may do altruistic things here or there, but we can never DO enough to outdo the evil in our hearts.  It took someone else, a rescuer.  And yes, this path is narrow and those who choose it are few.

So God made us in such a way that Jesus, and faith therein, is absolutely indispensable to us avoiding eternal hellfire, despite the fact that there are many impediments to us coming to such faith.  Not omnibenevolent.

Please repent!

No.

Choose your hero.  Would the actions of Gandhi, Lincoln, MLK, and others have been possible in a world without the evils against which they strove?

No.  But neither would they have been necessary.  Apparently your argument is that the good of heroism outweighs the evil of suffering.  This would only be true from the perspective of our audience, namely, God.  Thus we have a fourth concept of God-the-selfish.  He likes to watch heroics.  Not omnibenevolent.

Source?  
1) http://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bry ... MjAG2-Fzg=
2) http://www.joniearecksontadastory.com/

The emotional tone of those videos rendered them unwatchable for me, but from just a few moments of exposure before I got nauseous, I got the sense of what sort of people would claim they'd reject an offer of never having been crippled.  I'll concede the point.  I grant that in your theistic culture, people really would make such a claim.  I of course regard such claims as self-deceitful, but then I regard your whole theistic culture as self-deceitful,.

[Chandler M Bing]

1. Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?

It wasn't. And I strongly doubt that Jesus existed.


2. Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?

It isn't.


3. Is it reasonable and just that many people are born in places where the likelihood of their coming to believe the Christian creed is almost nill?  If so, how is it reasonable and just?

It's irrelevant.


4. Is it reasonable and sane to accept the Christian creed while rejecting the Muslim or Buddhist ones?  If so, how is it reasonable and sane?

It's not insane, it's just unreasonable.


5. Are the myriad varieties of suffering reasonable and just under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God?  If so, how are they reasonable and just?

Yes they are. However, "just" is not the right word. I'd say "appropriate". Everything that happens as it does it meant to happen that way, everything has a purpose, but it's not necessary to always know the purpose while you're having the experience, or even in your current lifetime.



I'm not a christian by the way, I just thought I'd answer the questions anyway.

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Inevitable Droid.

He cares more about himself than he cares about me or you.

Where does the scarcity of care come from?  Why do you assume "there are only x poker chips of care units, and he puts more than x/2 of them towards himself"?

This is the doctrine that God can't tolerate moral imperfection in his proximity.

It's not him who can't tolerate it, it's us.  We'd die.

Because God sees not our sin, but Christ's merit.

Close, but not quite.  God still sees our sin, but it's paid for by the sacrifice of his Son.

This contradicts omnipotence.

You're not alone Inevitable Droid, this theory started at the foot of the cross.  "Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, 'You who were going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself!  Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!'  In the same way, the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders mocked him.  'He saved others,' they said, 'but he can't save himself!  He's the King of Israel!  Let him come down now from the cross and we will believe in him.  He trusts in God.  Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, "I am the Son of God."'"  Questioning omnipotence is an oldie and a goodie, and it's still working today.

But believing and loving are two different things.  Or at least I think they are.  How do you define love?  Are you saying that believing in the Resurrection and loving Jesus are identical phenomena?

No.  Believing that his death and resurrection paid for my sins and made my soul blameless before God is the rescue.  The guy drowning in the pool loves his rescuer when?  After he's rescued!

Are those dudes saved?  Are they heavenbound?  Does awe at a sunset return those dudes to a state where God can tolerate their proximity?

I don't know.

I've studied Christian theology extensively.

If you still have an interest, I'd recommend you to study Christian lives.  Have peoples lives really changed for the better from non-believer to believer?  Football, like Christianity, is a lot less interesting if you're always reading the stats and the rule book.

So God made us in such a way that Jesus, and faith therein, is absolutely indispensable to us avoiding eternal hellfire, despite the fact that there are many impediments to us coming to such faith.  Not omnibenevolent.

Yep, creating a humanly free agent who can reject him wasn't omnibenevolent at all.  Christian orthodoxy doesn't purport that God will make everyone happy, just that he loves us enough to show he exists and give us a way back to Him.

Apparently your argument is that the good of heroism outweighs the evil of suffering.  This would only be true from the perspective of our audience, namely, God.  Thus we have a fourth concept of God-the-selfish.  He likes to watch heroics.  Not omnibenevolent.

Back to the "padded room world vs. varsity world" argument, ours is a world in which all types of good can happen and, necessarily, where some types of evil can happen in limited volumes.  Two observations on that:
1)  A given person endures one person's worth of pain.  We may be tempted to look at the universe and say, "to date, there have been 10^13 terps of suffering" where a terp is a unit of suffering.  Is this really the way suffering works?  Isn't suffering only "real" in the sense that it's borne by the sufferer?  So the real measure of suffering in the world is the max amount of suffering one lifetime has endured.  Agree?
2)  Varsity world is not about heroics, it's about allowing goods of all types to exist.

I'll concede the point.

Thanks.

[McQ]

Hey Inevitable Droid, I can help you with the study of christian lives that was suggested by bandit4god. Here's a short list that is a good example of lives changed by  jesus:

Pope Sixtus IV
Pope Gregory IX (or any member of the Inquisition, which he created)
Gregory XII (famous quote - ""When dealing with heretics, one is not obligated to keep his word.") Nice guy.
Pope John XXI
Cardinal Richelieu
Pope Sixtus IV (Spanish Inquisition, for which we owe him a great deal of thanks, a la Monty Python)
Pope Innocent VIII (decreed all cats evil, and they should be burned along with their witches). Of course he was right; cats are evil.
Pius IX (kind of hated science and declared scientific method evil)
The Crusades

 and just so's we're not singling out Popes and catholics:

Scott Roeder (murdered Dr. George Tiller)
Jim Jones
Jim Bakker
Every adult member of Westboro Baptist Church
the Wife Swap god warrior lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns


Just a start. There's a'plenty more that you can study on your own.

[Voter]

On another thread, a congenial fellow suggested that Christianity was logical.  I like this fellow because I find him to at least be intellectually honest.  My response to him was to pose a set of questions, the answers to which, I conceded, would amount to a Christianity 101 primer.  It is my contention that these questions have never been answered logically by any Christian, ever.

They're not really logical questions.

I pose them here to any Christian who cares to take up the challenge.  If my congenial fellow prefers to answer these questions here rather than on that other thread, I am happy to have him do so.

For purposes of this thread, we will accept uncontested and take for granted that the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving entity who incarnated in the body of a Jew named Jesus two millennia ago.  Given all that -

Considering the flood and many other Biblical events, no, we won't take "all-loving" for granted. you would need to argue that position.

1. Why was it necessary that Jesus be crucified?

2. Why is it necessary that people believe in the crucifixion and what it meant?

That's what satisfied God's sense of justice.

3. Is it reasonable and just that many people are born in places where the likelihood of their coming to believe the Christian creed is almost nill?  If so, how is it reasonable and just?

No, it's gracious. They did nothing to deserve life.

4. Is it reasonable and sane to accept the Christian creed while rejecting the Muslim or Buddhist ones?  If so, how is it reasonable and sane?

Buddhism is a philosophy.

Regarding Christianity and Islam, you've probably heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence for extraordinary evidence is stronger for CHristianity than for Islam. That's a reasonable differentiator.

5. Are the myriad varieties of suffering reasonable and just under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God?  If so, how are they reasonable and just?

See above re: all-loving.

[LegendarySandwich]

They're not really logical questions.

Then what would be logical questions?

Considering the flood and many other Biblical events, no, we won't take "all-loving" for granted. you would need to argue that position.

So, you're admitting that your god cannot possibly be all-loving and omnibenevolent. Then what about all the Bible passages that said he was?

That's what satisfied God's sense of justice.

God has a strange sense of justice.

No, it's gracious. They did nothing to deserve life.

Lol, what?

Buddhism is a philosophy.

Not all sects. And, so? It still claims knowledge about the supernatural.

Regarding Christianity and Islam, you've probably heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence for extraordinary evidence is stronger for CHristianity than for Islam. That's a reasonable differentiator.

That's like saying that a bee has more intelligence that a fruit fly.

[Voter]

Then what would be logical questions?

Logical questions wouldn't be dependent on personal preference, to start.

So, you're admitting that your god cannot possibly be all-loving and omnibenevolent. Then what about all the Bible passages that said he was?

List the passages and we'll discuss.

Lol, what?

Giving life is an act of grace.

Not all sects. And, so? It still claims knowledge about the supernatural.

It would still be less supported by the criteria noted for Christianity and Islam.