Response To https://twitter.com/FeedAtheism/status/736997227579768832

Re: "Oh yeah, we’d also have to concede that sin exists and that its definition is, well, basically, just look in the mirror", to me, my study of the Bible seems to suggest that the term "sin" seems used to refer to multiple concepts, perhaps beginning with the decision to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and including thought and other behavior that seem to result, and the adverse outcomes that, in turn, seem to result.

Re: "If Christianity is true, then all of life—all of it—is nothing more than a staging ground upon which this drama of faith is to be played out, the drama that determines who will believe and who won’t", an apparently reasonable alternative depiction of the human experience seems to be that we are given an opportunity to experience a grandly enjoyable existence (nature still seems amazing despite the harm apparently suggested to have been humanly perpetrated upon it), but, apparent due to the limited and fallible nature of human perception (and apparently, as a result, human decision-making), the quality of that experience seems to depend wholly upon acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, not just belief in God.

Re: "Those who say “no” to the question, and who may well have had what seemed to them to be very good, legitimate, justifiable reasons to say “no,” are not transported into that realm", to me, the apparently-reported Jim Jones debacle seems possibly exceptional reason for serious examination of suggestion that one relinquish personal direction to any point of reference. To me, the Bible seems to suggest not only that God understands this, but that God warned about it (1 Samuel 8).

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that allowing humans to continue forward after choosing to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, whether in a subsequent realm or in the current, seems to risk harm to that context, as history seems to substantiate. God, in protection of an unflawed context, might omnisciently choose to remove or bar such choosers from it, as Genesis 3:22-23 seems to illustrate.

To me, criticizing such proposed action by God seems ideologically inconsistent with accepting a humanly administrated judicial penal system that separates certain proposed societal offenders from the rest of society, apparently to protect the rest of society from the offenders. God's apparently-suggested omniscience seems to suggest God's related action as being the infinitely more appropriate of the two.

Re: "He looks upon them with disgust because their sins have not been cleansed in the blood of his son", to me, both the Old and New Testaments seem to suggest a different posture as God's toward those who choose to replace God as primary relationship. The Old Testament prophetic books, apparently referred to by some as the "Doom-and-gloom" books, seem to forecast tremendous adversity for those who choose to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, yet seem to intermittently clarify that the intent is solely to incentivize their restoration of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and that the forecast is "easily" reversible via their doing so.

Other relevant passages seem to demonstrate God being patient with humanity, perhaps now as well as then, perhaps so much so, that some seem to criticize God for allowing humanly-caused human problems to persist.

Re: "I’m going to make being alive in this Universe the hardest, cruelest, nastiest, most agonizing experience imaginable", to me, the Bible seems to portray a different picture in which Genesis 1 seems to go through a relatively large amount of conscious effort to convey that after every day of God's apparently-suggested creation, God remarked about how good it was, apparently after the 6th day, even upping the description to "very good". Afterward, God seems portrayed as inviting enjoyment of the creation, imposing solely one explicit restriction, and providing like companionship for human enjoyment. Apparently, all humans needed and still need to do is accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and the human experience seems Biblically-suggested to continue problem-free forever.

However, the decision seems to have been made, perhaps both then and since, to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and the result seems to have been as disastrous as predicted. The Bible seems to explain why and how to reverse it, and science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent depiction.

The comment's presented article "The Terrible Reality that Would Exist if Christianity Were True" seems to further depict God as the cause of human experience problems, but perhaps the above offers a balancing perspective pertinent to the article's remainder.