Not a caricature... a summary.

[Vera_Ljuba]

In the beginning there was God. He was bored, being all alone, so he decided to create the physical world, and populate it with all sorts of beings, among them, humans. He gave the humans one commandment - though he knew that the humans will disobey. When humans disobeyed, God became angry (why? didn’t he know that it will happen?) and cursed the whole creation (all those zillions of galaxies), creating a miserable existence. Millennia passed.

All of a sudden God decided that the experiment was a failure, and decided to ditch it. He sent a deluge and drowned all the humans and animals (what about the fish?) - while he kept a few samples to restart the whole shebang. Hmmm, didn’t he know that it will fail again? Millennia passed, and people were as they always have been, some good, some bad.

So God decided to suffer a split personality, and went down to the humans in a semi-human form. He knew that he will be crucified but he needed that to be able to pardon the transgressions of the humans. Just like any other pagan god, he needed a sacrifice, but he would not have been happy with animal sacrifice, or even human sacrifice. No sir! He had to sacrifice himself. What a novel idea! Of course he botched that, too. He was unable to kill himself, so he spent a few days in some unspecified place, called hell, and then ascended into heaven, where he could sit on his own right hand side. How can you sit next to yourself is a “mystery”.

Millennia still keep passing. People are just as they have always been, some good, some bad. Presumably, God still ponders, how could he make a better world, where everyone could share the bliss emanating from him. Well, when he finds a good method, I am sure we shall all find out about it. Until then we can hope that he meant what he said about “no more Deluge”. Of course that does not exclude some other methods. A huge meteor might strike the Earth, or the Sun can go nova, or maybe an ice-age will restart the failed experiment.

Life is a “mystery”.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think this is helpful, Vera.

Objection, m’lud. Argumentative.

Sustained.

 

[Wesrock]

Yeah… that’s a caricature.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I don’t think this is helpful, Vera.

Objection, m’lud. Argumentative.

Sustained.

Overruled. The opening statement is always argumentative. Any refutation of the proposition is welcome.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Overruled. The opening statement is always argumentative. Any refutation of the proposition is welcome.

Not according to the American Bar Association (and by your use and acceptance of the terms ‘sustained’ and ‘overruled’ you appear to be invoking a legal opening statement. See below:

. . . No Argument In The Opening Statement
Jurors are not supposed to form an opinion on the case until they have heard all of the
evidence. Accordingly, as stated above, arguments are improper during opening statements,
because arguments may not precede the introduction of evidence. (Note the meaningful
difference between the terms “opening statement” and “closing argument.”)
How can a lawyer introduce the case without arguing? Generally, if the opening
statement explains what you expect the evidence to prove, you are properly opening the case.
Unfortunately, there is a subtle difference between what is a proper opening statement and what
is an improper argumentative opening statement. Lawyers should avoid expressing opinions;
should not make direct statements as to why a particular piece of evidence is not believable; and
should not vigorously attack the opponent’s case… ./QUOTE]

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Not according to the American Bar Association (and by your use and acceptance of the terms ‘sustained’ and ‘overruled’ you appear to be invoking a legal opening statement. See below:

Fine. I simply copied the word “argumentative” from the post I replied to. My mistake. In the OP I presented a short summary for some selected Christian teachings. If there is anything that is incorrect, you are welcome to criticize it.

Of course what I wrote was sarcastic, to see if there is some in depth arguments against it. So far none happened. I did not even expect one. Just presented how the Bible CAN be read. Since there is authoritative “Catholic Annotated Bible”, any and all interpretations are acceptable.

 

[davidv]

In the beginning there was God. He was bored,

First caricature. None of the literature suggests any such disposition of God.

being all alone, so he decided to create the physical world, and populate it with all sorts of beings, among them, humans. He gave the humans one commandment - though he knew that the humans will disobey. When humans disobeyed, God became angry (why? didn’t he know that it will happen?) and cursed the whole creation (all those zillions of galaxies), creating a miserable existence. Millennia passed.

All of a sudden God decided that the experiment was a failure,

Second caricature. How is this anything but a biased derogatory opinion.

and decided to ditch it. He sent a deluge and drowned all the humans and animals (what about the fish?) - while he kept a few samples to restart the whole shebang. Hmmm, didn’t he know that it will fail again? Millennia passed, and people were as they always have been, some good, some bad.

So God decided to suffer a split personality,

Third caricature. Jesus is fully God and fully human. This is no split.

and went down to the humans in a semi-human form.

Fourth caricature. See response to third caricature.

He knew that he will be crucified but he needed that to be able to pardon the transgressions of the humans. Just like any other pagan god, he needed

Fifth caricature. God is never in need.

a sacrifice, but he would not have been happy with animal sacrifice, or even human sacrifice. No sir! He had to sacrifice himself. What a novel idea! Of course he botched that, too. He was unable to kill himself, so he spent a few days in some unspecified place, called hell, and then ascended into heaven, where he could sit on his own right hand side. How can you sit next to yourself is a “mystery”.

Millennia still keep passing. People are just as they have always been, some good, some bad. Presumably, God still ponders, how could he make a better world, where everyone could share the bliss emanating from him. Well, when he finds a good method, I am sure we shall all find out about it. Until then we can hope that he meant what he said about “no more Deluge”. Of course that does not exclude some other methods. A huge meteor might strike the Earth, or the Sun can go nova, or maybe an ice-age will restart the failed experiment.

Life is a “mystery”.

At least the last sentence may be correct, depending on your meaning of mystery.

Although not a summary of Catholic theory, can we concluded that this your understanding of it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Fine. I simply copied the word “argumentative” from the post I replied to. My mistake. In the OP I presented a short summary for some selected Christian teachings. If there is anything that is incorrect, you are welcome to criticize it.

Of course what I wrote was sarcastic, to see if there is some in depth arguments against it. So far none happened. I did not even expect one. Just presented how the Bible CAN be read. Since there is authoritative “Catholic Annotated Bible”, any and all interpretations are acceptable.

How can you expect criticism and in depth arguments to a piece of sarcasm based on your opinion? “If” there is anything that is incorrect? Right now I can’t find anything that is correct to begin with, with the exception of “In the beginning there was God.” Yep, that’s it. The only correct thing you posted, and it’s from the Bible itself. Everything else is dreck, pure and simple.

Now, if you wanted to write a piece of honest questioning searching for possible answers, go for it. Bradski is quite correct, your post is rather ‘supremely’ unhelpful as it stands.