Velkyn, I say I don’t want there to be a creator because I don’t want there to be a hell, and that is not BS, I really don’t want there to be a hell, I assume you don’t want there to be a hell either?
I know what you are saying, but we may be living in that hell.
You are against evolution, but why? Genesis says that the sun was created on the 4th day, and that night and day were created on the first day. The genesis story gives no hint that the person writing it knew anything about how the universe really formed, or had even a clue about what causes day. He put water above the sun. He put the sun in the upper atmosphere, where the fowls can fly. The bible is bereft of scientific truth. You know why?
Scientific knowledge is something that you cannot fake
. It takes thousands of years of human intellect to mash our way out of the ignorance box that we were born into. There is no magic way of intuiting what created us (and how), because it does not talk to us. The only way to find out, is to make very large telescopes, and computers and have very large institutions funding them.
Biblical prophesy is also something which Christians resort to. Prophesy is something you also cannot really fake in great detail (ahead of time). I can prophesy that one king will come after another, and one kingdom will be greater than another, but I cannot fake the dates of earthquakes and volcanoes. If God wanted to show us that he was real, he would give the dates of tsunamis, volcanoes and meteorite strikes. But... he doesn't.. because these dates cannot be faked. So, what, we are supposed to believe a few lame, vague prophecies that may have been written after the events?
You are showing signs of accepting Christianity because you think it's the only one on offer. Many other religions have hells. The Christian Genesis story shows beyond any doubt, that the OT is bereft of real knowledge, so why would you then attack evolution? To bolster your belief in something that cannot be true?
If I were you, I'd take a close look at Galatians, and wonder why Paul was so sure that Jesus implied that you should not to follow the law, when James was so sure you should. Now, I can't be certain that Galatians is not just another fake book. It's tempting to believe that it was written by someone who was there at the time. But all that early writing could have been constructed by later writers. Paul can never quote Jesus, even when he is making an argument that you should not follow the law. Why is that? Why can Paul never quote Jesus, when Jesus is such a treasure trove of quotes? Why can John never quote Jesus? Surely an eye-witness should have got one quote right?
The most logical answer is that the quotes had not been invented, yet. It is possible that the epistles do, in fact, pre-date the creation of the quotable Jesus.
Jesus was not enough of an authority to convince the people he knew, to abandon the law. Surely he should have been more impressive than that? Surely he would not need a false prophet (Paul) to sort that out? And yet we have the gospel of Matthew, telling us to keep strictly to the law, as a way to get to heaven. Somehow, a book which is inconsistent with grace, is staring you in the face, but you cannot see it. How, and why, was it included in Christianity? And why the fuck did Paul not know any quotes from it?