I don't know why people try to understand the views of people who attempt to throw their deities into every life and event. Whatever deities are out there obviously aren't interested in getting a perfect Lemming score, they just want to complete the damn game. If people want to worship such a non-perfectionist then that's their thing. There is a niche for such Lets Plays. :)

Those people aren't suffering, they are dying; 140,000 of them in just a few hours. I don't think I want any part of a god that allows that and pawns it off on 'suffering'.

What's to stop the supernatural realm from being a plane of reality that science does not look into? http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2014/02/22/deeper-waters-women-in-the-nt

http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

There are a number of posts there in the last one, just replace 09 with a different number.

I won't deny that there have been women who have been mistreated, but is that because of their religion or part of their patriarchal culture? Enduring trials in this life perhaps, but life itself is seen as a gift rather than something to endure. People who have bad things happen to them will be comforted, but there is no reward system for it in the afterlife. The death and resurrection of Jesus are of central importance to Christianity, but the emphasis is on the resurrection. Jesus ascending doesn't symbolize much. Children were dependent on men for survival, so perhaps you would prefer if they had starved to death instead? If a father makes a poor decision and goes to jail, if his family is not able to survive, then the responsibility is on his own head. And they weren't targeted because they belonged to a certain ethnicity, but because of their actions, so it's not genocide. Wrath can be more excessive than justice, but it is not necessarily incompatible with it. The point of a fair trial is to determine guilt, but if God already knows they're guilty, then I not sure what good you think going through a trial would do. Sex is a gift from God, but there a rules about how the gift is to be used. Catholics believe that sex should be both an expression of live and open to procreation, so they are against birth control. It comes from an interpretation of the Bible were a man spilled his seamen and was criticized, but I think he was criticized for his reasons for spilling his seamen rather than for the act itself (Genesis 38). The Church Fathers also taught against it for various reasons. People were often fined for sinning. I haven't looked much into the practice of self-chastising, but as far as I'm aware, it was not done because the body was seen as bad, and if it was, it would be something that was not taught in the Bible.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/bavakama8.html

Sorry, I thought you were making a point about suffering rather than about death. Is there an acceptable rate of death that is compatible with a loving God, or are you against a loving God that allows any death?
Can you show that there is a different scenario where there would be more people who freely choose to enter into a saving relationship with God?

Boggles the mind. XD

I'm outta here.

Don't reply to me about my comments to other people you pretend inquisitive. This question is marinated in Christian bias and I'm not going to waste time arguing with you about anything. I've tried to discuss things (not argue) with you before and you failed the fundamentalist Turing test. Now you're on your own to run amok with your silliness.

Faith is not trusting something to be true in spite of strong arguments against something, but because the reasons for trusting are strong than the reasons against. Edward Feser has described faith as nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it. Similarly, someone should be an atheist only because they think that's what the evidence supports. I'm currently going through a book that's talking about a couple of missionaries that were sent to Brazil to help work with street children. One of the stories it talks about was both the husband and wife were considering giving money to a cause and they both saw an amount they should give, but it was in different currencies. When they did the math, it came out to the same amount, so they took it as confirmation that they pledge their money. The problem was that it was more money than what they had, so they had to trust God to provide it. They didn't find out until later, but on the same day they made the pledge, someone had made a deposit in their account that covered what they didn't have.

At one point they needed money to buy a bigger facility for the children. They thought God was telling them to buy a certain building, but they were only able to scrape together money for half of it and they agreed to pay the second half in three weeks. They didn't know where the money would come from, but they trusted God, and He provided.

The book contains example after example of them trusting God to provide for their needs when they didn't see how their needs would be met, so their faith was very much practically substantiated. Indeed, we've all been given much more grace than we can possibility give to others.

The discussion you tried to have with me was little more than you making a whole bunch of completely unfounded assumptions about me and what I believe. I am open to the possibility of being wrong and have been convinced to change my mind a number of times, so I am in no way a fundamentalist. The question is valid because you are once again making unfounded assumptions.

Maybe it's the language barrier, or I'm simply too dumb this early in the morning - I don't understand the question.

The first is pretty good in terms of "interpreting the script". Thanks. But what is written and what is done are different things.

And where did that patriarchal culture come from? Why were the godesses' temples the first that were shut down when Christianity became state religion in the Roman empire? Didn't the Roman women lose the right to divorce from husbands? Weren't the "wise women" and midwifes, the ones that knew most about female hygiena and birth control, that were under special protection in pagan times, the ones that were in constant danger of being prosecuted as witches? Wasn't a woman that menstruated seen as unclean by the Christians (and Jews) while they were considered "sacred" by pagan cultures (with special retreats, were they could chatter about the old time equivalents of shopping shoes)? Didn't the German and Nordic tribes have laws against rape (A rapist would be declared outlaw and fair game), married or not? When did "rape in marriage" become illegal in western countries? It was 1997(!) in Germany. They tried to change the laws since 1973 but the Christian parties(!) blocked it.

No reward system? The cake is a lie? What do you say to TrollumThinks that there is heaven?
Also TrollumThinks say, that the empty cross is the symbol of the ascension, so this being omnipresent, must be very important?

Well for an all powerful being it should be easy too feed a few children. According to the bible he's done it a number of times. Or he could have transported them to new loving families. There are so many options. These stories simply contradict the image of an fair, loving and omnipotent being. They smell more like "we invented a badass god to explain a desastrous event".

In my view, wrath is totally incompatible with justice. Justice should be impartial, that's why "Justicia" is depicted blind.

The point of a fair trial is not just to determine guilt, as I wrote before. It is also a means of the victims facing the perpetrator and the chance of the latter to confess and repent.
YMMD :-D

Thanks for the explanation.

Eternal yes, but your guy is supposedly eternal AND omnipotent.

You simply redefined the term omnipotent to jive with your idea of this god. But that is not the only problem you have, here is more:

An omnipotent eternal being is illogical. Omnipotence would surely mean that such a being could create another being just like it. But that is impossible because it would not be eternal. So, either your god is illogical or not omnipotent or not eternal.

Did I say ascension? (possibly, I may have been tired) - I thought I said 'resurrection' - in that the empty cross signifies that death no longer has any hold. Soyeong's right that the focus is on the resurrection.

There are many ressurrections in your bible

The "eternity" of a god figure is also its absence of boundaries, so technically there would be no space to create another god figure or perhapse the newly created one would actually be part of the same whole, but that might raise doubts if the new one was actually created at all. :)

And if Jesus had been killed in another way, we would now see an empty guillotine, gallows or chopping block etc as a symbol of life? I can't really see that.