In your tradition, of course...God allows Himself to be challenged and questioned by humans on a near constant basis.
That's not my tradition, it is what the Bible says.
I am assuming that God deserves a free pass due to executive privilege, much as a wise general or statesman is given at times.
Again, how is that relevant? You are just making stuff up again. The issue is that you market a God that is the creator of all, seen and unseen yet not responsible for what that God created. You try to use silly arguments like "God created the potential for evil" yet again, that is simply not what the Bible says.
If you insist on bringing Her to trial for creating evil, you will need to prove that evil was an unneeded and/or unnecessary addition to reality. And again, we need to define what specifically is and is not evil.
And several people have mentioned the specifics over and over and over again. Creating evil; (the God in fact has so stated that He created evil). Creating beings with prior knowledge that they will be condemned. Changing the Pharaoh's mind and then punishing that Pharaoh for what the God forced the Pharaoh to do. Creating a flood that killed innocents. The list goes on and on and most are examples that the God has admitted committing already.
At the risk of invoking the appeal to popularity, why is it that some of the major apologists fail to see what you find so obvious? They too have read the Bible, and yet market a different conclusion. Peter Kreeft is an obvious example.
They are Apologists. The want to support the dogma and not what is actually written. They are marketing the god they created and the dogma they created and so must find ways to deny that the Bible actually says what it says.
You have a good argument supported by scriptures, but my question is how you have arrived at a different conclusion from many, if not most other learned Christians.
I am not trying to market any god or any dogma but rather simply honestly present the evidence.
My possibility/potential evil argument is quite logical within their paradigm, though you correctly point out that its not supported by the Bible. So again my argument of why we cant speculate on which God we choose to market rather than limiting our paradigm to scriptures thousands of years old.
You can as long as you admit that you are simply marketing the god you create and the dogma you like.
Besides...i dont like this "complete" God that you market. You have fused good and evil into the actions of One Being rather than a consequence of rebellion...
Exactly, you do not like the conclusions that are supported by the evidence and so just like Faith you make up your own fantasy.
But all you are doing is turning Christianity into a humanist philosophy. You, of course, will successfully argue that Jesus pushed the same agenda.
And as you said, Jesus did push the same charge and challenge. But Christianity is far more than just that. There are also the belief systems, the dogma, the ritual, the writings all the various trappings people have added over the years.
What I try to show is that Christianity don't just fit on a bumper sticker.
There needs to be a consensus on what God we are worshiping and which God we choose to market.
We need to throw God away.
Thus legitimizing a humanist agenda and claiming its what Jesus really taught. You can call it Christianity if you like, but its simply just humanism.
No Phat, it is not just simple humanism although that would be a great result if it actually happened.
What I say is we need to be honest about what the evidence shows. No one has a clue about what might happen after death, of whether or not there is some afterlife. No one has a clue what GOD, if GOD exists is really like.
BUT we can have an idea about what this life is like and about how to make this life better for as many as possible; so I suggest we should concentrate on those things where me might actually be able to speak intelligently and where might actually be able to effect outcomes.
Christianity is a Path and one with some basic beliefs. But we need to recognize that belief and knowledge are not synonymous.