Dorkman wrote:Also, presupposing the God of the Bible exists and is the one who wrote the Bible -- well, that's hardly an unbiased source, is it? It's more than a little plausible it's loaded up with more than a little pro-Yahweh propaganda, don'tcha think? I mean, you say God's wrath is justified because we're wicked, but if God's the one who wrote that -- well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
If you don't accept His existence upfront then any argument about whether or not He is a good God is irrelevant. An argument like that always assumes the truth of the Bible, no matter which side of it you're on.
It doesn't, really. I just made an argument which accepts that particular God exists without assuming the Bible is true. They aren't mutually necessary points of order.
You're correct that if I don't accept the Bible's word that this God exists I have no reason at all to do so, but I was granting the point for the sake of argument.
My point was that if you believe the Bible is true you have every reason to praise God.
I know that was your point. My point is I don't agree. It is, after all, possible to believe some parts of the Bible and not others, as even Christians do. I don't see it as any different to accept the events but not God's self-serving justifications for them.
This is all academic, of course, as I obviously don't believe the Bible is truer than any other fantasy story.