On top of that why would you lie about your Gods reactions to something? Its one thing to lie but to me it seems like quite another to misattribute actions to your God whose core tenets is to be truthful in their holy scripture.

This brings up 2 problems. God is not omniscient and the book is factual or that the writers took liberty and wrote in a way that would inspire awe. This means that God either isnt truely god like or the nature of God is uncertain because the book is untruthful.

why would you *know* God's immediate reaction

God's nature is incomprehensible

a book, no matter how insightful, isn't going to be able to accurately portray that

the Bible is a book written by humans for humans

God is omniscient, but, as it is a concept founded in something as abstract as knowing all things at all times, you're not going to get a truly accurate representation of that

Then the book forsakes the commandments put forth by their God about bearing fasle witness and cannot be trusted.

This would mean that the nature of God, to include its very existence, is uncertain even when referencing the very book written to exalt it.

I'm not saying they knew the immediate action but if God was all powerful none of those actions would have happened. Furthermore if NONE of those actions happened its a book of lies and brings the whole religion into question.

That the source calls God all powerful is untrustworthy, untruthful, immediately brings accounts of other things into doubt. Things like there being a heaven or hell could be grossly untrue and things like Jesus' miracles could be exaggerated or never happened.

1. Omniscience does not imply just because God knows everything He acts on it beforehand. Do not try to act like you can understand God's motives or logic.
2. There is a fundamental difference between "bearing false witness" and drawing parallels to humanlike emotions, actions, and things that can be understood more easily by humans to the incomprehensible nature of God. As I have said prior, you cannot put what is infinite into a finite container. You cannot fully encapsulate or acknowledge what is infinite, because our understanding of all things is limited. You can not describe the true nature of God, but you can help to understand some, limited version of Him through applying relatable things, such as human emotions (i.e. God is angry), or physical features (God's Hand) -- because that helps us, as humans, understand Him better, even though we can never truly begin to understand His TRUE nature. That is not "bearing false witness".

Under the pretense of God's omnipotence, He cannot exist within the confines of Creation -- within the limitations of the Universe. To be the creator of all things, He has to exist outside of space and time.

You are looking at this far too rigidly and must look at it from a non-black and white point of view. It is not something simple that is "either, or" -- it is something more complex than that.

now i am going to sleep soon

1. It does mean that he would know when it did happen, that if people knew about it he would to, and that he would not need to travel to see if it was true and to what degree.

2. Even if you twist the meaning like that it still means that the book isnt true. It was written by people with far less wisdom than the average person today, trying to describe something that even we could not know, and doing so in a way that only conveys what they want us to know rather than what actually happened.

That the book is what labels him as all powerful and the book is untrue which bring that into doubt.

I get the concept of God and it wouldnt match up to whats written. God cant be known but they clearly know whomever it is they are actually referencing.

"God" spoke to them directly and did so in exactly the manner that a non omniscient entity would. Furthermore outside of the bible "God" no longer speaks to anyone though its obvious he had to in the past. Why did he stop?

God was speaking. If they did not record it as spoken that sounds like lieing to me.

While it is possible that God did everything in a way that calls doubt its much more likely that it simply was a ploy for gaining power. Especially because of how strict the belief system is.

Taken as written it is 100% logical to doubt it. Anyone who hasnt been groomed heavily to "have faith" or believe "you can't know god" will come to that conclusion or something similar.

What I and other agnostics and atheists see is that people are lying. That it is a book of people being people in a bid for power.

If the book was truthful it wouldnt be open for interpretation. Doing so has believers lying and in some causes committing murder over difference of opinions among themselves.

Not saying you have to agree with my viewpoint but at the very least you would say that it could be possible and or that it isnt an unreasonable viewpoint to hold.

Or...perhaps God didn't put pen to parchment in the Bible, and it was simply a case of divine inspiration via Holy Spirit...which is what Christians actually believe

The book wasn't always open to interpretation. Hence Latin. It was once written in a global language that at least half of all Europeans could understand. When people stopped learning Latin, it had to be translated into the vernacular, and in recent times because almost nobody speaks Latin, the Mass had to be done in the vernacular as well.

Besides that, most of it is pretty clear, and usually only someone with their own agenda would find a different interpretation, such as with gay marriage

Moses wrote the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah. No doubt the part where God had to go check to be sure is not meant to be taken literally

It's also not a power play. The only people who say that are people unhappy that the Bible says they can't kill their kids, have gay sex, orgies, etc. Yeah, God is controlling when it comes to your morality.

Otherwise you are more free as a Christian. Sure you have a set of rules to follow. But generally you will be free of AIDS, other disasters in life, divorce, etc.

To call the Bible a bid for power is to say the Euros who built civilization were merely brutal conquerors, not pioneers of medicine, literacy, religion, etc to the savages.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that gives someone power over someone else. It does not say "I am King". In fact it does the opposite, it lowers kings and emperors, who in the Roman Empire, were synonymous with gods. The Bible says they are not gods, there is only one God, and he is above everyone, from peasant to king.

That is part of why, as secular history has documented, Christians were slaughtered en masse for the first 3-4 centuries of our faith.

There was something that gave them power over others though.

Religion was something that people held to a greater esteem than kin king or country. To be a religious leader back then was akin to being a lawmaker or politician today.

It wasnt a ruthless bid. Without a doubt they laid down universal laws that would be needed for a well functioning society.

And it was likely always open to interpretation or there wouldnt really be a seperation of religions as heavily as their is.

Almost all religion started rooted in nature. Then mankind seemed to have grown an ego and replaced everything thing with multiple Gods with very human traits. Then in many cases they said screw having multiple gods there is only 1 true god.

Looking at that all I see is a struggle for power akin to the ones that go on with countries. Ones that trancend borders. In a way its very similar to say globalists today. Able to push an agenda over a larger area than what nations can accomplish and these days religions as well. It has moved on to raw idealism as religion has been ousted from whatever real power it once had.