Should the Bible be interpreted as literal, poetic, metaphorical? This not only depends on which part of the bible you are talking about, but also who you ask. The Bible, both old and new testament, has stories in it of incredible cruelty. It describes a creator of our universe that is a fairly demon like fellow who I think that most people would have a hard time separating from the likes of Lucifer.

I believe if you went through on literal interpretations you would find that the Bible is highly inaccurate, not historically accurate, and a simply putrid example of morals and ethics that we as the human race should be using in today’s world. Richard Dawkins had a very good interpretation of Yahweh of the Old Testament when the Bible is interpreted literally:

“Arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins

Theists, please address this: 

Christians who believe in free will like to argue that it's necessary for there to be evil and suffering in the world, and it's necessary for there to be a hell, because without these things, there could be no free will.  God would need to root out free will to eliminate evil, and since God values free will more than anything, he permits evil to exist. 

However, this limits God.  If God is all-powerful, he can create a universe in which there is free will and yet no evil, suffering, or hell.  In fact, if God is both all-loving and all-powerful, not only could God do this, HE ACTUALLY WOULD.  Therefore, God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving, or he is both not all-powerful and not all-loving.  

Free will doesn't bypass the problem of suffering.  If you want to hold on to your belief in God's loving beneficence, then it is necessary for you to abandon your belief that God is literally all-powerful.   

{mod if you change it again AIG101 you will be banned}

Hello everyone, and welcome to the lecture that may change your life. The following text is for the megalomaniac, greedy and charismatic leader and shepherd-types that wants to make a good use of their abilities as mind controllers and handlers of the masses.

As we all know, aprox. 90% of the world’s population believes, in one way or another, in a supreme being commonly known as ‘G O D’. This has been an absolute truth since the first humans were young, young and therefore afraid of the constant changes of a world they could not control nor understand. Under those circumstances, their only to cope up with their own helplessness in the face of a harsh and trying world, mysterious and seemingly all powerful in it’s nature, was to adore and worship all natural phenomena, such as the day and the night, rain and thunder, life and death, they had to anthropomorphisize them into shapes and forms recognizable for themselves, granting them identities and personalities with which they could relate to (or as many of you might be thinking, shaped to their image and likeness) so as to give an artificial sence of order to their world, and better yet, to adopt the delusion of control over the natural phenomena by means of gaining the favour of their respective deity. Thus the primitive rituals, offerings and beliefs that spinned arround these man made gods, the keepers of the elements, and the givers and takers of health, good wheather, of life and death itself, which latter on evolved into religions, were born.

Let's assume for a moment the validity of Pascal's Wager. Certainly one cannot will oneself to believe that something is true (except perhaps through self-induced brain-washing); however, the acceptance of the logic behind Pascal's Wager might prompt a person to begin searching for God by going to church (or mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.), praying to God, reading religious scriptures, spending time seriously contemplating religious issues, and making an even greater attempt to love others and do good in the world than he might otherwise. This "searching" might lead to one "finding" God or being rewarded by God with a transformation of character that results in sincere, profound (and salvific) belief.

So where's the problem? The problem is that any way you spin it, Pascal's Wager rewards selfishness.

Let us weigh the possibility of a benevolent, all powerful God against the possibility of there being a supreme evil. Then, let us consider the consequences.

 If you are a typical Christian or Muslim, you must admit the following logic:

1. God is, by definition, omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient.
2. The devil is described as being created by god.
3. The devil must therefore have a finite amount of power.
4. The devil is also, by definition, superemely evil and malevolent.
5. Benevolent beings oppose evil.
6. Malevolent beings are sources of evil.
7. God is opposed to the devil.

1. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately.
2. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering.
3. So God has no reason not to eliminate evil.
4. So God has no reason not to act immediately.
5. Evil persists.
6. Therefore the devil is more likely to exist than God.

1. Lies are a form of evil.
2. The supreme evil is the devil.
   
3. The devil is the supreme liar.
   
4. If the worst lie is the conception of a false god, then its source is the devil.
5. Since the devil is more likely to exist than god, god is more likely the ultimate lie.
6. Anyone who worships God is more likely worshipping the ultimate evil.

This is a debate that I am getting into on another forum (Catholic Answers Forums; for the unabridged debate, click here) with an atheist called Ateista. (In the debate, I'm "Dmar198".) Although other people contribute, she (or he) and I are the main contributors; thus, I have copied the debate (and I hope to continue updating it) in chronological, statement-response form, restricting only the posters (to me and Ateista) and the unnecessary context. Ateista makes the opening statement, and the rest is just a series of responses to one another.

The debate is whether a deity can simultaneously be outside of time and exist as creator of the universe. Enjoy!

_________________________

I am a teenage kid who lives and hangs out with Christians, Jews, Atheists, and Agnostics, but many of them are “fundos.” I, myself, am an outspoken Atheist who commonly finds myself arguing with them. The other day I was invited to a church event at the biggest Christian church in the city. It wasn't a big event but they showed the video/documentary, A Case for Christ. It is about an atheist who tried to disprove the existence of Christ and ended up proving it to himself and, of course, became a "believer." Most of the points made I had heard before and could counter. I have not researched the history of the time and domain of Christ (my only knowledge came from a few videos from this site and the nightline debate) so when the professors/historians were saying many "facts" that were contradicting to that of the Response Squad I became a little confused.

Guess who wrote this:

'We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists and provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment on without compass (direction), anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.' 

....? 

I have a challenge for Young Earth Creationists, proponents of Special Creation in general, and those opposed to the inclusion of evolutionary theory in biology classrooms: Read the book and show us what the controversy is. You can get a free audiobook version at LibriVox, and put it on your iPod. It won't cost you anything but some time, and you may emerge with a smoking gun against "evolutionists."

LibriVox » The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin