"It was the lapses that occur when you try to explain an omnimax being that behaves and thinks in the way that your religion describes it."

If that is so it still doesn't matter, because its not the point of the issue that this behavior be 'logical,' the point is that the behavior be 'actual.'  A man walks into a store naked because it was a 'Bear Store.'  Not logical, but happens anyway.  It becomes subjective as to whether or not the actual behavior is rational or not, but the point is that that subjective viewpoint has no relation on whether or not the behavior is actual!

"I did not sidestep your point that an omnipotent being attempted to accomplish a difficult task. I asked you to explain how an omnipotent being could find that task or any "difficult"."

Yes you did and no you didn't.  You have NOW tried to get me to explain about an ominipotent being, but if you look again, you originally were talking about God's alleged cruelty and I pointed out that you completely omitted his alleged compassion.

Btw, isn't talking about an omnipotent 'being' an anthropomorphism?

I think it is.

"So what? Merely labeling something an opinion is not addressing the argument that it is a good and reasonable opinion."

It is for the purposes of this thread, or at least in regards to my explanation of DT's position, which was that he was more interested in what the facts were, and not people's opinions about them.  Thus, again repeating myself, if you are of the opinion that Jesus' death on the cross is a silly way for God to deal with the evil of man, that does not change in the least whether or not Jesus really died on the cross.  Or that he rose.

"You want me to be fair? OK."

Yes, but first you can't go around using your own anthropomorphisms like 'omnimax' and 'being.'  So, you show me the way grand poobah, and I'll follow.

"Let's see if I can make sense of that response. You refuse to answer my questions because I wouldn't believe your answers."

No.  I refuse to answer your questions because you said it wouldn't matter.

A refresher:

Me:  Now, what worldview embraces the reality of free will, the reality of pain, evil, and suffering? Some religions classify them all as illusions. The apparent existence of all of these things surely adds credibility to the explanatory system which contains them, and decreases the credibility to those that don't.

You:  Not at all.

Since you reject the notion that accounting for these things (or not) adds or decreases credibility to the worldviews in question, it doesn't make any sense to waste time answering them.  

"It isn't?"

Nope.  Key word was 'must.'

"Being omnipotent, God knows that some humans will go right ahead and victimize others."

I think you mean omniscient?

"Interesting. You do agree that some suffer disproportionately to others, do you not?"

Yes, but what you said was:

"please explain why some must suffer disproportionately to the rest of us."

And that is not my position.

"All we're getting is flat denials. No explanations."

That would be consistent with my reaction to your apparent attitude which appears to reject the idea that satisfactory explanations could conceivable increase the credibility of the worldview.

"It is hardly a controversial opinion that scapegoating had been practiced in the part of the world for centuries, so merely labeling it an "opinion" does not make it disappear."

Which still isn't the point.  You know, the point is not even that difficult to grasp.  No doubt scape-goating has been practiced from the very beginning.  That doesn't mean that there wasn't a really really really good reason for it.  Again, that's the point.  Its irrelevant if you think the idea primitive and unreasonable of a god to demand.  What would matter is whether or not the god did actually demand it.

"The practice fits in with the longstanding tradition of human and animal sacrifice, but it makes no sense at all in modern culture."

You can only say that because in Christianity it is said that Jesus was the ultimate scape-goat, and satisfied God's standards of justice.  Also, the destruction of the Jewish temple pretty well ended the most sophisticated structure for such sacrifices.  'Modern' culture stands where it does now because of the dominance of Christianity since 300ish AD.

"It is possible that a REAL god does demand such sacrifices, but why would he? What does God get out of the deal?"

Again, not relevant and not on point.  

"The Christian God, however, had no need of sacrifices of any kind."

Then you don't understand Christianity.

"It was the lapses that occur when you try to explain an omnimax being that behaves and thinks in the way that your religion describes it."

If that is so it still doesn't matter, because its not the point of the issue that this behavior be 'logical,' the point is that the behavior be 'actual.'  A man walks into a store naked because it was a 'Bear Store.'  Not logical, but happens anyway.  It becomes subjective as to whether or not the actual behavior is rational or not, but the point is that that subjective viewpoint has no relation on whether or not the behavior is actual!

Basically, you are agreeing with my point but trying to ignore its consequences for your argument.  The omnimax God is logically impossible, so it cannot exist as such.  It is a false god, just like all the others.  The naked man analogy is what is irrelevant, because there is nothing that is logically impossible about such a situation.  The question is whether your god is a plausible being, given his inherently contradictory nature.  An omnipotent being cannot, by definition, experience weakness or failure.  An omniscient being cannot be puzzled, surprised, or disappointed.  A benevolent being cannot allow the innocent to be needlessly victimized.  The job of those who would defend the existence of such a being is to explain how it makes any sense at all.  Otherwise, you are just left clinging stubbornly to a belief out of blind faith, and nothing more.  It is classical Orwellian doublethink.

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."  -George Orwell

"I did not sidestep your point that an omnipotent being attempted to accomplish a difficult task. I asked you to explain how an omnipotent being could find that task or any "difficult"."

Yes you did and no you didn't.  You have NOW tried to get me to explain about an ominipotent being, but if you look again, you originally were talking about God's alleged cruelty and I pointed out that you completely omitted his alleged compassion.

Actually, I have factored that into the list of antinomies.  If he were a compassionate being he would not allow such suffering.  If he were a fair being, he would not allow such unequal suffering.  The list goes on...

"So what? Merely labeling something an opinion is not addressing the argument that it is a good and reasonable opinion."

It is for the purposes of this thread, or at least in regards to my explanation of DT's position, which was that he was more interested in what the facts were, and not people's opinions about them.  Thus, again repeating myself, if you are of the opinion that Jesus' death on the cross is a silly way for God to deal with the evil of man, that does not change in the least whether or not Jesus really died on the cross.  Or that he rose.

No it doesn't, but we are all invited to invest belief in the story.  If you give utterly preposterous reasons for why it happened, then it is likely that it never happened at all as you claim.  Many people were crucified in the Roman Empire who were not gods and were not resurrected.  The resurrection story could easily have been as real as other preposterous claims made by religious cults of those times.  And there was no shortage of religious cults claiming miraclous historical events in support of their beliefs.

"Let's see if I can make sense of that response. You refuse to answer my questions because I wouldn't believe your answers."

No.  I refuse to answer your questions because you said it wouldn't matter.

I never said any such thing, although you seem to think that you can escape the argument by taking such a stance.  I'm not terribly surprised at the tactic.  You really have no answers to offer, so it saves face to claim that your opposition is just too stubborn to make it worth offering those answers.  

A refresher:

Me:  Now, what worldview embraces the reality of free will, the reality of pain, evil, and suffering? Some religions classify them all as illusions. The apparent existence of all of these things surely adds credibility to the explanatory system which contains them, and decreases the credibility to those that don't.

You:  Not at all.

Since you reject the notion that accounting for these things (or not) adds or decreases credibility to the worldviews in question, it doesn't make any sense to waste time answering them.

I did not reject the notion that accounting for these things is irrelevant.  I rejected your claim that your religion actually ACCOUNTS FOR those things.  With or without God, we still have pain, evil and suffering.  The question is how you reconcile your idea of God and the story of Jesus with those things.  On the face of it, there appears to be no coherent train of thought there.  Why would the ruler of the universe turn to blood sacrifice as a method for cleansing humans of the sinful defects found in its own imperfect creations?  This is the question that you cannot answer.  All you can do is say that we should focus on the fact that it happened rather than the logic of why it happened.  Wrong answer.

"Being omnipotent, God knows that some humans will go right ahead and victimize others."

I think you mean omniscient?

Good catch.  My bad.

"Interesting. You do agree that some suffer disproportionately to others, do you not?"

Yes, but what you said was:

"please explain why some must suffer disproportionately to the rest of us."

And that is not my position.

Fine.  I have no objection to replacing must with some other modal verb of your choice.  How about do or will or can?  The issue, as you well know, is that your god is supposed to be fair.  So why should anyone suffer disproportionately to others?  If your god did not exist, that fact would be very easy to explain.  Life is unfair.  We accept that fact precisely because we are powerless to change it.  Theoretically, God is not powerless to make things fairer, yet he fails to act (even in the face of strong pleas by the worthiest of his worshippers).  Either he does not exist, or there must be some good reason why he permits such unfairness.  The FWD is the only attempt at a coherent defense of bad things happening, and it really makes no sense at all.  How could allowing a baby with spinal bifida or allowing the rape of a child be considered defensible?  We condemn fellow humans who allow preventable tragedies to happen.  We excuse gods of that behavior.

"All we're getting is flat denials. No explanations."

That would be consistent with my reaction to your apparent attitude which appears to reject the idea that satisfactory explanations could conceivable increase the credibility of the worldview.

It is also consistent with evasive behavior.  If you can't or won't respond, then we can move on.  Naturally, it's all my fault that you won't answer.  You absolve yourself of all responsibility.  

"It is hardly a controversial opinion that scapegoating had been practiced in the part of the world for centuries, so merely labeling it an "opinion" does not make it disappear."

Which still isn't the point.  You know, the point is not even that difficult to grasp.  No doubt scape-goating has been practiced from the very beginning.  That doesn't mean that there wasn't a really really really good reason for it.  Again, that's the point.  Its irrelevant if you think the idea primitive and unreasonable of a god to demand.  What would matter is whether or not the god did actually demand it.

OK.  You admit something there--that scapegoating has been practiced from the beginning.  I agree that there may have been a "really really really good reason for it", but I can't imagine one other than the reason I have already given--because gods ate the food sacrifices and used the other sacrificial objects.  Just as the leader of the tribe gets the lion's share of the spoils, ancient gods took their due.  But that isn't your god's motive, is it?  The question that you are stonewalling us on is why it makes sense for your god to demand such a sacrifice.  (And this issue here is not whether sacrifices were demanded, but WHY they were demanded.  Primitive cultures had a good explanation.  You do not.)

"The practice fits in with the longstanding tradition of human and animal sacrifice, but it makes no sense at all in modern culture."

You can only say that because in Christianity it is said that Jesus was the ultimate scape-goat, and satisfied God's standards of justice.  Also, the destruction of the Jewish temple pretty well ended the most sophisticated structure for such sacrifices.  'Modern' culture stands where it does now because of the dominance of Christianity since 300ish AD.

The Temple was the only place consecrated for animal sacrifices.  Jews were not allowed to perform that ancient practice elsewhere, as were people of other religions in that era.  It made sense back then, because people believed that gods actually ate the sacrificed animals (just like Santa Claus eats cookies and drinks milk that children leave out for him).  

"It is possible that a REAL god does demand such sacrifices, but why would he? What does God get out of the deal?"

Again, not relevant and not on point.

Again, very relevant and very to the point.  How does it make sense for the creator of the universe to demand a scapegoat sacrifice?  If you cannot explain this, then you cannot make sense of the central point of your religion--the blood sacrifice of Jesus.  All you can say is that your religion does not need to make sense.  Blind faith is what it is all about.

"The Christian God, however, had no need of sacrifices of any kind."

Then you don't understand Christianity.

I'm not a Christian, although I do think that I understand Christianity as well (or better) than other relgions.  I thought it was understood that I was asking YOU for an explanation.

Eeesh. If I'd known my statements would provide opportunity for another all-out Johnny vs. Cop Slugfest, I'd've brought a bag of popcorn and a soda...  

*reads and learns* (hopefully) lol