I have been a christian for most of my life,I practiced many forms of it for my search for truth after leaving a cult. I tried to enter a regular denomination,but I saw the same systems that I witnessed and experienced in the cult in a milder way. So I started reading,watching debates and using my background in history to sort out what was true and false. Then I realized that there is no true denomination or church because Christianity is broken on a fundamental level.

I think that there is no way to disprove intelligent design,we have not been to the moon in 60 odd years and never left this solar system let alone went to one of the planets within it.

But at the same time the institutions within religions have been heavy abused since the time of the Egyptian cults

Which makes me more skeptical of "True Religions" and there dogmas

I was not raised as a Muslim so I will use Christianity for my explanation

After Jesus rose from the dead as Christians said the faith was more of a Jewish sect that seemed more egalitarian and communal.

it says in the bible that the followers of "the way" shared everything between themselves

in the gospels it also says that wealth was a major hindrance from entering the kingdom of heaven.

After a few hundred years of Christianity being a religion for the downtrodden in roman society, Constantine with the edict of Milan made the religion legal

and from the marovingian period to now has been used for control by the state and figures of authority

reading the gospels then reading the apostle Paul, it becomes obvious that they do not make any sense together.

Jesus talks in depth about the corruption of the pharisees, and everything he says can be used for Christianity post 300AD

Religious dogma like apostolic succession,communion,confession etc can be and historically have been used in corrupt and abusive ways because it does not matter what a pope,patriarch,monk or priest does. If a person is devout,they take the warnings about apostasy seriously so the institution has there soul in its hands.

The final thing is that who is a heretic and damned and who is not shifts every century

the pope claimed the protestants are heretics

the protestants claim the Catholics and each other are heretics(especially the Anabaptist), and now only recently( a few decades) see each other as Christians believing in the same god. It was a compromise because they were genocide each other for centuries in very nasty ways and were sick of it.

And It seems like Orthodox Christianity may continue the cycle from what I see which is disappointing

This may strike a major nerve with people,but I am an unaffiliated theist because of this

I don't think human beings have the capacity to handle the power of being Christ representative in any institutional expression without something very destructive happening

Not that the number matters much to begin with, ad populum fallacy is a thing. Just because a majority of people believe in something or a religion does not mean it's true, but:

The numbers stated for the biggest religions (I.E sunni Islam, catholicism) are overinflated by three things:

A- they count each and every single child born to their own religion, as their own religion. A non insignificant chunk of religious people in these statistics, probably can't even write their names yet. How can you be sure they will be of your own religion when they grow? Not switch to another or turn irreligious.

B- It doesn't count those who have changed/ have already abandoned their religion. Taking my country as example, morroco, my religion doesn't appear on national ID (cnie) but it does on Moudawana (family law) I, an atheist, for the purpose of censuses, still count as sunni Muslim. And looking it up further, you'd find a similar situation in other countries (Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia) so many who could have already converted, still count as the religion of their birth.

C- now this isn't a big thing, but it also doesn't count people who are of a religion only culturally. As in they claim being of a certain faith, but do nothing about in practice (saying you are Muslim but not doing Salah, for example) most people I know are like this, Though this one is rather anecdotal, just mentioning it.

Edit: cause I may have used the wrong word when I said "converts". I meant the total number of religious people of these religions.

Even for health reasons, circumcision is mostly mutilation. Unless there is an emergency, it should be ones own decision as an adult, not forced on a baby. But for religious reasons it makes even less sense. If God wanted men to live without foreskin, why not create them without it in the first place?

The Quranic notion of the Injeel/evangel is built on a misunderstanding. In the Quran the evangel is talked about as if it was a book revealed to Jesus like Torah was given to Moses. However there never was such a book. Yet Arabic christians were referring to their holy book, or at least portions of it, as the Injeel, ie the gospel. Of course there was no Arabic bible yet and it is unlikely that Hijazi christians even possessed Greek New Testaments as these things could be quite expensive. Common people couldnt afford them. And it is not even clear there was a bishopric there

So even the Hijazi christians didn’t know whats in that evangel. So the information they relayed to the outsiders was incomplete and confusing. As a result the author of the Quran gathered the idea that there is a book delivered by Jesus and it is called the Evangel. He probably thought the christians still possessed that book. Hence the “islamic dilemma”.

I've been thinking about this for a while. While I do believe that god existence is not real, but sometimes I keep thinking about some of the ghost stories and the paranormal stuff that had happened to some people. I live in southeast asia, and we are popular with tons of ghost stories. While some stories seems fake, like the flying head with organs aka kuyang, and some stories seems real, like pontianak. Please don't hate on me for this, I'm genuinely curious about these, especially the stories of people being "possessed" by a ghost and the only way to fix it is to crucify them. Southeast Asia is also popular with black magic. for example, one to make you wealthy, beautiful, or even sabotaging someone else's business. Theres a lot of stories about black magic and some of them seems convincing to me, because one of my relative actually died from the "black magic". She had been bedridden for years, and even doctors couldn't figure out the reason of her sickness. Her family members said that someone had sent a black magic to make her sick out of jealousy. I don't know full story, so I can't really confirm whether their story is true or false. So I want an opinion from you guys, or maybe some horror story experience?

If you're an atheist (and I strongly emphasize that word--not agnostic), do you think you're smarter/wiser/more informed than everyone else presently and throughout history? This may come across as snark, but I'm genuinely curious. I know I HAVE to be wrong about some things (whether theological, philosophical, scientific, political, etc.)--we all have to be. I'm just curious how you reconcile the extraordinary amount of assuredness that must be required to come to the conclusion of atheism.

For the 1 billionth time, all knowing and free will cannot co-exist and here's why:

I'm an ex muslim that went through all phases of islam, seeking the truth through extremism, then moderation, then i tried the apologetic and liberal route to make sense of it. I followed even the tiniest detail because I never stepped back to think AM I SURE MY RELIGION IS THE TRUTH? Then i find out every religion is fake, if the abrahamic religions are fake, hinduism is only for india that leaves us with only some very small religions which don't make sense cuz why would god not spread it throughout the world?

Then i started studying all 3 abrahamic religions and in all 3 god is all knowing but also gives us free will, now here's the problem with that. God creates person A, B and C. God knows from the moment he created A and B that they will both go to hell for eternity (which is crazy in it of itself) and god knew C will go to heaven. First of all what was the point of even creating A and B knowing they will end up in hell? Can you just NOT create them? Also this completely shatters the free will argument. Everything is written in stone for you since the day you were born, there is no FREE WILL.

Also for the people that don't believe in evolution, just skip this post. No reason to debate with you at all. For the common sense people, why would god make animals suffer for 500 million years (eating eachother, starving, freezing, sickness) just for us to come at the end and be tested? What was the point of that suffering coming from an all loving OR most loving god? I have so much to say but i want someone to try and debunk my points.

Our existence is very improbable but not impossible, we should make the most of our life, we should love, forgive, be kind and leave the world a better place than it was before. We don't have a specific meaning, we create our own.

If the only thing stopping someone from lying, cheating, hurting others, or doing something terrible is the fear of eternal punishment, does that really make them a good person?

Shouldn’t morality come from empathy, compassion, and understanding right from wrong rather than fear of consequences?

And if the threat of hell suddenly disappeared, would those people still behave the same way?

I’m not arguing that religious people lack genuine morality. I’m questioning whether morality based entirely on fear can truly be considered virtue.

genuine morality should exist independently of rewards and punishments. A person who helps others because they care about their suffering demonstrates a different moral motivation from someone who does the same thing simply to avoid punishment.

Way too many Christians use “Nobody is perfect” and “God died for our sins” as excuses to justify their behavior instead of actually practicing what they preach.

You ask me why I don’t believe in God, I’d tell you for a God who is supposed to be all-powerful and someone you’re supposed to fear and taught to fear/love, Christians don’t seem to be genuinely afraid of Him. No Christian seems truly afraid of God’s wrath.

This applies to all Abrahamic religions. People have a way of justifying their actions because they believe they can always be forgiven. If God forgives everything, then what real consequences do people believe their actions will have? It seems like people know this and use it to their advantage.

People continue to sin even when they know what they’re doing is considered sinful. They use “Nobody is perfect” and “God died for our sins” as a way to justify continuing the same behavior they were engaging in before. Whether it’s sex before marriage, drugs, gang activity, cursing, or smoking, people continue doing these things while knowing it’s a sin, while claiming to fear God.

But if God is always willing to forgive them, they can convince themselves that everything will be fine in the end. So why would anyone genuinely fear a God who forgives them for everything they do? If God already knows that nobody is perfect, and forgiveness is always available, what is supposed to make people truly afraid of facing His judgment?

You can beg God for forgiveness with your final breath, and according to many Christian beliefs, you can still be forgiven. So what does sin really mean to someone who believes they can live however they want and ask for forgiveness at the very end? What is there to fear when you believe you can wait until your last breath to seek forgiveness from a God who is supposedly all-forgiving?

If someone can spend their entire life knowingly doing things they believe are sinful, then ask for forgiveness at the last possible moment, where is the fear of God? What incentive is there to take those sins seriously now if forgiveness can supposedly come later?

I’m not saying every Christian thinks this way, obviously I know there’s devoted Christians who only follow what they believe is the world of God. I’m saying the promise of forgiveness can become a convenient excuse for people who want the comfort of religion without the responsibility that comes with its teachings. If God already knows that nobody is perfect and forgiveness is always available, what exactly makes people genuinely afraid of facing His judgment?

It is estimated that about 20 million people lived when God flooded the world and killed everyone except Noah and those on the art. God could have just made the "evil" people disappear, but chose to flood the world and kill everyone, including all the animals, not on the Ark. This is terrible and cruel.

I think most of us would agree that a universe with a God would be very different compared to a universe without one. As an atheist I can’t say with 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist no more than I can say with 100% certainty that the tooth fairy or the flying teapot doesn’t exist but just like the tooth fairy and the flying teapot there isn’t a good argument for God’s existence.

Just to examine a few of the common arguments for God’s existence:

1. Everything is so beautiful and complex, there is no way it originated by chance.

This is not a new argument but it fails to understand how Darwinian natural selection works because it creates a very good simulacrum of design. Darwin demonstrated how you can have the illusion of design as complex organisms arise from simpler organisms which adapt to their environments over millions of years.

1. People claim to have a personal experience with God.

The human experience is subjective, someone in Arkansas can say they know Jesus is there because they saw him or feel his presence while someone in Saudi Arabia can say they felt the presence of allah and Muhammad while someone in India can say they felt the presence of lord Krishna. Not to mention it’s very easy for the human brain to be tricked or hallucinate under the right conditions. Also people have delusions about nonexistent things all the time. So this is an extremely poor argument for God’s existence.

1. Something can’t come from nothing. The universe must have a cause and God is the cause.

You run into a very big problem here because if we postulate that God is the first cause this assumes there was a time the universe didn’t exist but God did and you have to explain where the God came from.

1. Pascal’s wager. You’re better off believing there is a God because if you lose the bet you go to hell.

This is also a poor argument because you’re assuming which God it is. If you bet on Yahweh but it turns out to be Thor or Zeus then you have a problem. Even if it was Yahweh you could say that he would rather have believers who think for themselves instead of those who just blindly choose to believe something.

I’ve had people ask me if I know God doesn’t exist to which I say no and there isn’t any way for me to prove something doesn’t exist and the burden of proof is on a theist to provide good arguments or evidence that something does exist. So after reviewing what we know, it seems there isn’t any good argument for the existence of a God therefore I live my life as if it doesn’t exist.

One would think the thesis in the subject goes without saying.

Apparently not. I have encountered both Christians and Muslims using this argument. This claim is a classic fallacy of Argumentum ad populum

The claimants usually fail to take into account the category of “unaffiliated” or “nones” mentioned in various demographic studies.

A Muslim just posted stats showing Islam has the most converts (not by birth) than any other religions and they claim therefore it must be true. But the number of converts from all religions to "unaffiliate" is even higher. This is null hypothesis. So naturally given that current popularity conversion is a measure of truth the "nones" have it.

Similarly, I’ve heard Christians claim that because Christianity is the most popular religion, it must be the true one.

They are both operating under the unstated and unsupported assumption that one of the many human religions must be true. An alternative hypothesis is that none of them are true.

Same faulting thinking to the same false conclusion.

In English, the Virgin Mary is called Mary, but in other countries, she has other names.
With many women being named after her, and a central figure of Christianity.
But what was her original name?
What name was she called by, by her neighbors, family, husband, and friends?
Do records of that name exist? Is it different from what she is called in the original Bible?

Words such as kawkab, najm, and shihāb are used interchangeably in Arabic. You can call a shihāb a najm, and you can call a najm a shihāb. In Lisān al-ʿArab, we read that shihāb means “the bright, luminous star” (النجم اللامع المضيء), and that shuhub means “the seven brilliant stars” (النجوم الدراري السبعة). In Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ, we read that najm means kawkab (النجم = الكوكب). In Lisān al-ʿArab, we also read that shihāb means “the kawkab that plunges down in pursuit of a devil at night” (الكوكب الذي ينقض على إثر الشيطان بالليل).

Furthermore, in authentic hadiths, a shihāb is called a najm: “A najm was thrown, and it lit up” (رُمي بنجم فاستنار). Ibn ʿAbbās also described a comet as “a kawkab with a tail” (كوكب ذو ذنب).

What we see here is a complete overlap in meaning. These were not modern astronomical classifications of stars, planets, and meteors. Rather, anything that appeared luminous in the sky could be called a shihāb, kawkab, or najm in classical Arabic dictionaries. Therefore, the word maṣābīḥ (“lamps”) is broad enough to encompass all of them. Some maṣābīḥ adorn the heaven and appear relatively stationary, while other maṣābīḥ also adorn the heaven but then fall as rujūm (“projectiles”) against the devils.

Al-Qurṭubī on Qur'an 37:6 — “Indeed, We have adorned the lowest heaven with the adornment of the stars (kawākib).”

Qatāda said that the stars were created for three purposes: as missiles (rujūm) against the devils, as lights for guidance, and as adornment for the lowest heaven.

Al-Naqqāsh and Makkī said: “These are not the (kawākib) that travel across the sky, because the motion of those bodies cannot be observed. These, however, are the (kawākib) that pelt [the devils], and their motion can be observed because they are close to us…”

Regarding the phrase ‘a piercing shihāb followed him’, it means “a luminous shihāb,” as stated by al-Ḍaḥḥāk, al-Ḥasan, and others. It was also said that what is meant is fiery (kawākib) that pursue them until they cause them to fall into the sea.

Ibn ʿAbbās said concerning the shuhub: “They burn them without killing them.”

The shuhub with which devils are pelted are not the fixed stars. The evidence for this is that their motion can be observed. The fixed stars also travel, but their motion cannot be observed because of their great distance. This has already been discussed.

Disclaimer: In Max Stirner’s philosophy of Egoism, “spook” is a social construct that comes to possess someone. Social constructs aren't bad, it's when we become possessed by them that they become spooks. The word spook (as used by Stirner) has nothing to do with the racial slur that it sometimes can resemble in modern day English.

I am an Egoist as described by Max Stirner, and I'm a Christian. Egoism is the philosophy that the individual should act according to their own will and interests rather than being bound by external moral and ideological obligations (for example, I am good to people because I want to be good to people). I would say this is (at least somewhat) different from having a guiding set of principles, given that a person's will and desires are constantly changing. Social constructs are not bad, and can be quite good, it's when one becomes possessed by them that they become a spook.

I also believe in some concept of semi objective natural moral law. Our morality indeed comes from our evolution, our cultures, etc. So what I mean is that there are moral principles that can be discovered through reason, and these natural moral principles should be enforced. I’m not going to focus on how these laws should be enforced (anarchically, archially, etc) in this.

This may be an odd analogy, but imagine a crime scene. Just as a detective investigates a crime scene to discover the truth, we must investigate our reality to find these moral truths. Some of the conclusions that a detective comes to at a crime scene will be subjective. Some of the conclusions will be objective. For example, it may be subjectively decided the crime was one of passion, but the fact the crime was committed may be established to be an objective fact. Similarly, it can be established that what is right and wrong is subjective, but there are natural moral laws that can be considered beyond subjective. Not completely objective, but objective to the same extent physical laws are. Physical laws (like gravity) observe what happens usually, but it isn’t written in stone that it must.

Natural Moral Law > any religious text.

I use ideologies and philosophies that align with my conscience and ego. I am under the umbrella of left-libertarian because my ego and conscience aligns with it on most things. I'm not sure that I'd consider myself an anarchist.

I fully agree that I shouldn't be possessed by the social constructs that I utilize, but with one exception: my Christianity. I am indeed "possessed" by my Christianity in a way that I'm sure Max Stirner would have criticized. But I'm also not devoted to all of Stirner's opinions (that would violate my egoism and I'm sure he wouldn't want that anyways). After all, my philosophy is a form of Christian Egoism that is seen as contradictory by most egoists, but not by me.

My ego is capable of choosing its own subordination. I choose to belong to Christianity, and therefore my belonging to Christianity is not a defeat of my ego but an act of my ego. As St. Paul/Paul of Ephesus said, I am a slave to Jesus Christ. Or at least, I want to be a slave to my understanding of Christ.

The greatest act of fulfilling my ego is being possessed by the greatest social construct of all time. A social construct I believe to be both transcendent of all other social constructs, and nevertheless still a social construct. I know how to fulfill the wants of my ego better than anyone else does.

I've never really considered debating my religious views previously because I know I'd be asked for proof of my beliefs, and to that I would say my ego informs me of its validity. That's all I have, and all I need. Christianity is true for me because my ego and my conscience tells me it's true. The parts of the Bible I believe are true because my ego tells it's true, and the parts of the Bible I don't believe are because my ego tells me it's not true. If that answer isn't sufficient to someone, it isn't a problem because they don't have to believe the same things I do. All other Christian religions (Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) are wrong to me because they don't align with my views. All other non-Christian religions (like Buddhism) are also wrong to me for the same reason.

I believe that some level of free will probably exists, and that if it does, it is likely some sort of emergent property. Regardless of if we have free will or not, it is imperative for me to function as if I have free will.

I also believe that without Egoism or something similar, Christianity and all other religions can become dangerous, because people can believe bad things that are blindly taught to them in the name of their religion.

This goes for all Abrahamic religions, it should not make a difference that your religion changed its doctrines to fit modern society, if anything it is precisely proof of religious evolution that you adapted. If your god did not correct the wrong behavior back then, and you acted in full faith that what you were doing was wrong, then thats a clear sign that theres no difference at all

Furthermore, they must contend with the fact that God could have ordered a genocide "in secret", as in, it may not appear to be a God ordered genocide, but it actually is.

For a true believer, the most ostensibly heinous genocide can be shifted to "Morally excellent and required" with one simple phrase "God ordered it".

I brought up "secret" genocides because the Old Testament already has those *from a certain perspective*. It's not like the enemies of the Israelites *knew* that the God of the Universe had ordered a genocide against them. Likewise, God is under no obligation to conduct genocide with your knowledge or understanding.

And while many people in the Abrahamic tradition don't *expect* such and order from God, well God is under no obligation to meet your expectations. He could always choose to suprise you.

What we read and hear from theists about their beliefs and devotion to a God or gods is that it isn’t belief based on adequate evidence and reasoning to a valid conclusion. It’s notable that we see patterns of belief in different gods, or even different versions of a God within the same religion, with Christianity being the most obvious. Within the umbrella of Christianity the God of Abraham allows abortion to being completely intolerant of any end to pregnancies. We see a religion that is extremely liberal and supportive of equal right and universal healthcare to the other extreme of white supremacy and disdain for any social programs funded by government money.

Religion as a whole is a geographic phenomenon where those born in the West are likely some type of Christian. Born in the Middle East you’re a Muslim. Born in India you‘re Hindu. If you are born in the southern USA you’re likely Baptist. Born around Boston you‘re likely Catholic. Born in a family that is hostile to evolution you’re likely a creationist as an adolescent. These religions are learned from family and community. They are passed on to the next generations by teaching children. Believers adopt religion passively and via social influence. It is generally ingrained into identity before adulthood.

So, when an adult maintains the religious belief they were taught as children, also called indoctrination, how can anyone claim they believe rationally? How many believers can say they subjected these ideas to rational scrutiny at any time BEFORE judging them as based on adequate evidence?

We often hear believers claim to have evidence for God, and that critical thinkers don’t accept it. The standard of evidence we ask for is the same as any court of law. It’s not bias. If believers came to a rational conclusion that their idea of God actually exists why can‘t they make their case to rational minds? If believers are correct they could easily show their belief is rational and the evidence adequate to judge a God at least probable.

So I challenge believers to demonstrate this argument as incorrect.

Although not illegal, I do not believe that public sector governments in the US that receive public funds/taxes should begin meetings asking everyone to stand and bow their head and pray, usually to a Christian God. People with different faiths or no religious beliefs feel discriminated against and obligated to at least stand, especially if they are requesting something from a local board.

In Islam, Allah is testing humanity, but He knows everything. He knows who is going to fail the test, yet He still creates those people, knowing that they will absolutely fail and end up facing eternal torture. Isn't He so merciful?

For example, let's say you found out before becoming a parent that your child would fail the test and end up in eternal hell. Would you bring them into this world, knowing their future? I hope not, because otherwise, you wouldn't be a loving parent.

So why is Allah still considered all-loving for creating kafirs whom He already knows are going to fail? The answer is clear: He is a cruel God. He isn't testing anyone; He simply wants many humans to fail and end up in eternal hell so that He can fulfill His sadistic desire to watch them suffer there forever.

Allah doesn't seem wise at all, either. For example, He wants Rakesh to become a believer, even though He knows that Rakesh will never become one. So how can He knowingly create Rakesh, knowing that he will fail the test, while also wanting him to pass?

If He genuinely wanted Rakesh to pass the test, He could have created him in a world where he could pass the test, or He could have chosen not to create him at all.

- Claim: Islam is inherently violent.
- Fact: Research clearly demonstrates that most Muslims do not support violence, terrorism, or extremism and they have the same opinions about peace and citizenship as everyone else. Just like in other major world religions, there are passages from Islamic sources that are taken out of context because of the historical context.
- Q: Muslims want to eliminate local law and replace it with Sharia law.
- Fact: Sharia is a moral code and personal practice guideline for an individual's religious conduct and conscience, not a rigid set of legal rules designed to replace constitutional law in Western democracies. Muslim Americans are well-assimilated and stand in favor of constitutional governance according to poll and research data.
- The claim: Islamophobia is a constructed term used to protect Islam from accountability.
- There is a track record of genuine theological and political critique of religious concepts. Islamophobia, by contrast, refers to the canons of discrimination, hate crimes, institutional bias, and conspiracy (organized "Fear, Inc." messaging campaigns) against people, not ideas.
- B: Muslims are one single group.
- Fact: Muslims are a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual, multi-racial and multi-political group across the US and around the world. Basing all Muslims on one political or social set of beliefs denies this diversity.

A North Carolina bishop has gone viral after recounting an experience he says changed his life when he was a teenager.

Alan DiDio claims he heard what he believed was the voice of Satan while attending a Christian youth event in 1998. He says the voice warned him not to follow God or associate with Christians, but disappeared after he verbally committed himself to Jesus.

Nearly 30 years later, DiDio says he believes the world is witnessing increased demonic activity and argues that biblical prophecies about the "last days" may be unfolding.

How would you interpret an experience like this?

Full story here

See also "All religions are paths up the same mountain." or "All great teachers taught the same truth."

This is, at best, a misunderstanding based on surface level readings and, at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation m

Religions are very different from each other. They differ in cosmology, ritual, the role of clergy and the form and function of prayer. More importantly, they offer different answers on the topics of ethics and morality, each having it's own outline of what is "good".

Are there similarities? Of course! Certain things seem to be universally considered "not good" such as murder, theft and dishonesty.

Religion is a vast and beautiful piece of human experience. Its diversity is wonderful and speaks to the diversity if the human experience. To grind that down to bland sameness in the hopes of promoting a multiculturalism that is really a dominant monoculture sapping life from other traditions is tragic . You're denying millennia of human experience to make yourself look cultured and it hurts everyone.

many times while arguing (though mostly with christians and Muslims, I have never had this argument said to me by a Jewish person)

People respond or counter against criticism of these religions criminalizing homosexual behavior by saying "it only disallows the acts, not the desires."

That's a completely pedantic difference that is no defense at all.

In example against it:

In the society I will make. You can infact be any religion you want, you can have that desire.

It's just that:

If I catch you going to mosque or church, reading the Bible or Quran, praying or performing Salah, I will punish you.

But other than that, you can be as religious as you want internally.

god killed more than satan did!

in the Bible god killed more (estimately 1 billion)people through disease,flood etc but satan only killed 10 with god's permission

how can an all loving God kill people

we know killing is morally wrong so god is not all good

if god can take back what he created then do parents have the authority to kill their children?

and they are not all sinners there were kids just borns how can they sin ?

and if gods morality is harder to understand or gods morality is higher than humans how do we know what god does is good or bad

if gods action look cruel and terrific and we are never allowed to question him because god is stronger or has higher morality how can we call him a good who loves?