Christians notoriously commit crimes such as rape, murder and genocide thinking they have religious impunity. They believe if they repent before dying they will not be held accountable spiritually. Christians think this life is an interlude before an eternal one and they can waste the earth’s resources. The earth’s resources should be preserved as much as possible for future generations, not wasted because of fairy tales promoting a fictitious after life. Their attempts to project and blame criminal acts on atheists are a desperate attempt to shift and hide the blame for the moral deficiency of Christianity. The world would be a better place without religion, especially Christianity.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I'm in total agreement with you.
Ditto!
Christians that accuse Atheists of immorality are merely projecting their crimes on us. Between the bible and the real world there are plenty of examples of their immorality. Just another example of their hypocrisy of not following the teachings of the religion they claim to follow. (NIV) Matthew 7:5: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”
Let me start off by saying that the idea that someone can or should absolve you of your guilt or responsibility is not just reprehensible in practice, it is irresponsible to the extreme, allowing absolutely anything as long as you repent in the end. One should never be handed a blank card to do anything, sans guilt or responsibility, and any rational person should realize that off the bat. It endears itself to those who feel guilty or overburdened, and allows them to "wipe it all away", to wipe it all away with what is tantamount to a human sacrifice. It is. quite possibly, the single worst moral configuration it is possible to create. So, from the outset, the whole thing is immoral and simply repulsive on many levels.
From the conditions for "salvation" (belief), to the method(human sacrifice), to the fact that it doesn't matter one whit what you do(anyone can be saved); it is quite possibly the most morally permissible and corrupt systems that could exist.
Buying Bridges (Difficult thought here accusing soldiers of their deeds)
There’s water rising underneath
The bridge you’re trying to buy
It’s clear to me you can’t afford much time
The devil’s posse searches
On the roads you left behind
A trail of blood, you won’t be hard to find
Your bullets come too easy
They’re cheap and clear the road
You say you’re only doing what you’re told
The innocense you’re claiming
Won’t still the winds and rain
The storm is just a pennance for the pain
Chorus
It’s easy telling me I’m wrong
When no one knows what’s right
Hiding wisdom when we want to fight
Lessons we might ponder
Get pushed into the mist
When our nature calls us to the bloodied fist
So, ride away, ride from your past
Buy your bridges if you can
With vows that you will soon return a man
Maybe I’m too hard on you
Or, there’s truth in what you say
You’re lost in your own mirror, either way
Chorus
Bridge –
Play the games of your righteous men
Be the fool for who you must
But never sacrifice your public trust
Then wipe away your blood lust
On your chosen saviour’s rag
Your smoke-screened innocence is in the bag
A terrible song to attempt to convey to a close-minded audience, I wrote this some years ago well after a stint in the military. What never, ever comes into discussions regarding the commitment of foul deeds in direct conflict with idiom is the killing done by armies of warring factions. It would never be considered conflicting, in the religious sense of the act, if no religion-based moral code denounced it. But, in all the wars there has been the church presiding in the background blessing the armies before battle, and the dying after battle. The entire concept of a military chaplain corps eludes my moral sense of logic, and logical sense of morality. Yet, there it is exemplified and immortalized by one chaplain's infamous cry "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!", or some such nonsense.
So, you can pick and choose any single act of violence perpetrated by a believer upon another and ask where the piety fits. Or, you can go macro and point to any compass heading and you will find a major battle that man perpetrated upon himself within the same scope of piety somewhere along that course in history. That's not much of an exaggeration.
The Church has blessed many a man and his army since time immemorial. The State got the spoils and booty, the Church got the converts (aka $$$$). It was a good thing to get the Church's blessing to go to war because it became a pact between the Pope (aka considered a god by the masses) and the ruler du jour. To the commoner and soldier war became an ordained act. Yo, bring on the hookers tonight, tomorrow we die.
Every time man makes any effort to live in peace most of the expense is put towards fighting for it. In the words of the great Jar-Jar Binks, "My give up!"
As a Christian, I'll be the first to admit we've done stupid stuff. I'll never turn a blind eye to the mistakes Christians have made. I did want to comment on one thing you said:
"Christians think this life is an interlude before an eternal one and they can waste the earth’s resources. The earth’s resources should be preserved as much as possible for future generations, not wasted because of fairy tales promoting a fictitious after life."
I quite agree that the earth should be preserved for future generations! And I do have to say that quite a few other Christians don't want to waste the earth's resources. We are called to be stewards of God's creation. We have to take care of the earth. Some do, some don't (as usual). So hopefully your statement didn't mean all Christians :/ I love this earth.
However, I do wonder why atheists care about preserving the earth. I'm so glad that the atheists I've met are very earth-friendly... I just wonder why. I don't see the reason for y'all to care about the next generation. Ultimately, this earth and this life don't matter. The universe is gonna die a cold death and everything is gonna freeze, whether or not you and I take care of this world. If knowing that whatever we do doesn't really matter (the universe is gonna freeze one day regardless), wouldn't it be more prudent to simply treat the earth however you want and just enjoy life? Does it matter if we waste oil and oxygen and trash the place? Do what you want; this is the only life you have.
Now, I repeat, I'm so happy atheists don't do this! I'm just curious as to why. Maybe you all can help me out :) Thanks!
It's quite simple. Humans (along with every other living thing) have an ineluctable biological drive to ensure the survival of the species. Without a livable planet for our progeny, we violate that drive.
That makes sense :) But in our current evolutionary development, surely we are beyond that basic urge? I mean, if we want to "be homosexual" (the exact opposite of trying to keep the human species alive because reproduction is impossible without a third party), we can do that now. So why can't we trash our planet if it gives us the most pleasure and is easiest? We have to be beyond that basic survivalist drive, right?
Oy. No to your first question.
You say we can now be homosexual if we want to be? I had a mouthful of tea and actually sprayed it all over when I read that. But it was well worth the laugh.
In many ways, we can and frequently do trash our planet. But it's often not about pleasure or ease. Many also try to correct that trashing.
And again, no to your final question. In general, humans, along with other living things, have a drive to propagate the species. Because humans developed big brains, does not mean we lost the reptilian one. It's still there.
Well... all I hear everywhere is how we can choose who we want a relationship with. We choose off our desires (our wants), hence we can "choose" to be in homosexual relationships. Or heterosexual ones. Hence the way I phrased it the way I did.
And okay, that makes sense :) Thanks!
"But in our current evolutionary development, surely we are beyond that basic urge?"
Judging by the state of the planet and society now, I seriously doubt humanity is beyond its most basic urges, it appears to revel in them instead...
"I mean, if we want to "be homosexual" (the exact opposite of trying to keep the human species alive because reproduction is impossible without a third party), we can do that now."
A. I suppose there are some homosexuals who genuinely wanted to be homosexual, but many still go through a period wherein they wish they were "normal" because of social pressures and prejudices. While the drive to have sex is mainly instinctual and biological, the drive of who to have sex with is a multifaceted deeply psychological phenomenon which is not well understood. We do, however, know that choice has very little to do with it.
B. Who is to say that the rise in homosexuality isn't a byproduct of overpopulation? I doubt it, but a lower rate of reproduction would actually be better for the species at this particular time in history...
"So why can't we trash our planet if it gives us the most pleasure and is easiest?"
Our drives aren't as simple as the pleasure principle, many of them rising from being a social animal who cares for its young. In many cases the well-being of the progeny, mate, and even at times the community come before our personal pleasure of safety. Honestly, we have seen this behavior in packs of wolves, it isn't rocket science.
"We have to be beyond that basic survivalist drive, right?"
What you have described isn't really much of a survivalist drive, as it wouldn't promote long-term survival of the individual or species.
Thanks! I agree with most of what you said, except for "B" (cuz homosexuality has been around for a very long time, even when the human population wasn't as... populous. Haha). Very good thoughts
I can see why you're a christian: life doesn't matter to you in and of itself. You don't see the beauty of our ephemeral existence, or the immense luck of existing at all, without some divine purpose or plan, just by chance. And also, ephemeral as my life may be, there is a permanence or sorts; for what I am now was always yet to come and will always once have been, so why would I want to behave in a manner you describe? I am at this moment struck with the notion that it is actually followers of religions with an afterlife who should be questioned about why they care what happens to this earth. And they show largely by their actions that they do not care, possibly because of their immoral view of responsibility and accountability.
I apologize if my initial comment led you to believe life doesn't matter to me. It does :) I love life and enjoy it very much.
When we were placed on earth, God told us to take care of it (Genesis). The earth is God's, and not our own. Just as someone who rents a house needs to take care of it for the landlord, we need to take care of the earth for God. One day God will create a new Heaven and a new Earth. Until then... this is what we have. It's easier to live in a clean house than a destroyed one.
Yes, some Christians don't take care of the earth. That's a shame. But not all of us are the same :)
You don't need to apologize. In fact I should have said that it seems like you need a purpose to life to appreciate it, because or course I don't know what you really believe. In the end I'm glad you feel the way you do about the environment, and perhaps that's all that matters. I just find it amusing that the same argument can be made either way.
Ilovequestions,
if all religious people had your mindset, religion wouldn't be much of a problem.
Why atheists care about preserving the earth?
My answer is that it is not an trait connected to Atheism, but more to the individual. I would say that if a person is altruistic or egocentric is regardless of belief or lack of belief in deities.
However, if one truly believes that the world is about to end or that humans can't pollute the environment because it is gods creation, there is little need to care for the environment even for altruistic people.
Many atheists recognize the value of life on a completely different level than the believer who thinks they have an immortal soul.
But I don't understand the believers mindset. Why are they afraid to die? Why are they afraid that their loved ones will die?
If heaven were real, there would be rejoicing, celebration. But I think that subconsciously they realize the truth, and that is why there is such sorrow even though the dead have gone "to a better place".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMaK6k4oZ20
And the phrase "spending eternity in heaven", may have great "ring" to it, but think about it and it starts to sound horrible.
Imagine 50 years in heaven... 100 years... 200 years... 500 years... it might be getting boring now.
1.000 years... it is starting to go beyond imagination, 2.000 years... sooo boring! 5.000 years, this is becoming hell. 10.000 years, insane! 50.000 years, torture! 100.000 years, GAAAAHHH!!! 500.000 years. 1.000.000 years... 10.000.000 years... 100.000.000 years... 1.000.000.000 years... 10.000.000.000 years... 100.000.000.000 years... and so on. Unimaginable, terrible, horrifying.
After 10.000 years I doubt you would even care if you were in heaven or hell. Complete insanity would already have kicked in.
Well, believers are afraid of Hell. Some fear death (cuz it's natural and some never get over that), but mostly they fear Hell or their loved ones going to Hell. But if a believer dies, others are sad (again, cuz it's natural), but there is also joy because we believe they are going to a better place :)
Haha, and eternal life does have a good sound to it, doesn't it? ;) Also, Heaven will have a city that needs to be run! Stuff needs to be done. We are gonna be busy with work (just like how there was work in the Garden of Eden) and worship. Plus, there's gonna be a universe to explore! So cool :) I do enjoy thinking about it.
"Heaven will have a city that needs to be run! Stuff needs to be done." Please provide scriptural reference for this. "Plus, there's gonna be a universe to explore!" ...and this.
I love your ideas and appreciate the way you view the universe. You don't have a typically Christian outlook. I challenge you to truly explore what Christianity says and does, and then decide if maybe it's still the right lense to view the universe through. One step at a time.
Hmm, for scriptural evidence, there are several parables in the Gospels that Jesus used to tell us that those who were faithful and obedient with the responsibilities and talents they were given now will be blessed with more in Heaven. So that implies that while all believers will go to Heaven, some will be rewarded by being given greater responsibilities once we are there (Luke 19:11-27).
As for a city that needs to be run (Revelation 21 talks about Heaven in terms of a city), I think people sometimes think Heaven is a bunch of clouds and harps. But it's not. Just like work needed to be done in the perfect Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15)... work would need to be done in a perfect city. People think perfection and work is incompatible. That's not Biblical.
As for exploring the universe, I figured we would have an eternity to advance technology. That would be so cool :) Some believers think we are just gonna be directly worshipping God for an eternity (singing, praying, etc.)... these people neglect the fact that the Bible tells us that we worship Him by obeying Him. So we can do other things besides sing to Him to worship Him. So yes, we could go exploring :) That thought is amazing.
Your conclusions and suppositions are thoughtful and idealistic. It is obvious to me that you want the best for all people.
I am also familiar with the bible passages you refer to; they do not actually state that there will be work to be done and a whole universe to explore, and are rather non-committal in their promises of eternal after-life. What they do, quite effectively, is give the individual ownership over the work they do in this life, making them responsible for being the best and hardest working little worker bees they can be.
Your stance is not wholly consistent with scripture. You can extrapolate whatever conclusions you wish out of ambiguous passages, but truthfully, there will be a thousand different assumptions made by a thousand different believers, and some of those assumptions will be diametrically opposed. Just some more to chew on, here.
Thanks! :) It's been great having a conversation with you. I try to be conversational because I feel that is more productive than being argumentative. I glanced at the "rules" forum thread where people are just practically insulting each other and I'm like "people probably aren't even listening to the other person" haha. I like conversations better than arguments :)
And I do realize the Bible doesn't explicitly say these things. However, the Bible is not exhaustive. There are so many things it doesn't cover in-depth or even mention (naturally), so one must extrapolate from what it does say into the area in question. The tricky part for the believer is trying to be wise when doing so.
For example, the Bible doesn't mention certain harmful drugs, therefore I've heard some believers argue that taking those drugs is okay. However, the Bible does mention taking care of our body, so wiser believers will extrapolate from that that we shouldn't take those drugs.
So you are right in terms of the Bible being more silent than clear on the afterlife. I'm just trying to extrapolate from what is said. I don't know if there is right or wrong here (I could very well be wrong). But I've enjoyed talking to you about it! Haha
"There are so many things it doesn't cover in-depth or even mention (naturally), so one must extrapolate from what it does say into the area in question."
Must? No. Some people WANT to extrapolate passages from the bible and stretch and mold them to fit any scenario, which rather proves that you can justify anything with the right passage and an olympiad's worth of mental gymnastics. Much better, one would think, for one to not make assumptions and instead rely on their cognitive faculties to make decisions concerning the myriad topics that the bible is silent on. Even better, use those cognitive faculties to assess those commandments found in the bible, not all of them are particularly moral or healthy...
If there were a god, and it somehow arranged things in such a way for us to be here, surely it would expect better of us than to blindly follow a manual meant for bronze-age sheepherders and use the mental faculties we have as what amounts to a doorstop.
My friend, I gave the "drug" example for a reason :) I wouldn't expect you to live like I do, so I'll let you in on my mindset (I know you'll disagree with me, but bare with me): when I do something, I want to make sure it pleases God. How do I do this? I go to the Bible, which I believe to be His Word. Sometimes the Bible covers an action, so I can easily see whether or not it pleases God (giving, stealing, loving, hating, etc).
However, sometimes the Bible doesn't cover a specific action. When this is the case, I have to go off of (extrapolate) what the Bible says generally about the topic in question. Yes, as a Christian, I "must" extrapolate sometimes. There are dangers to this, as you mention ("you can justify anything with the right passage and an olympiad's worth of mental gymnastics"). I will never deny that :)
Again, I know you disagree with me, but I'll talk a little about your last paragraph. We don't "blindly" follow a manual, God has given us His Holy Spirit (a part of Himself that performs different functions). That, combined with the built-in conscience we are given, allows us to do better than walk blindly :)
I know you disagree with everything I just wrote, but this is just my rationale :) Thanks
If you actually had this all-knowing spirit from the author of the universe, why spend so much time trying to extrapolate the bible to say things about things it never did? That makes no sense, you wouldn't need to... Hell, as long as you are possessed of this magical spirit, you really shouldn't ever need a bible at all.
I just told you why :) God doesn't give us neon-lights from the sky telling us what to do. But He gives us the Bible and our conscience and a mind that can make rational decisions. He could do everything for us... but then why create us at all if we are just robots?
We buy real animals instead of robotic animals because we love it when they do their own thing (to a certain extent) and we love it when they obey us. We could get robotic animals that do everything we program them to do... but there is no relationship there.
God could do everything for us... but there would be no relationship. That's what He wants in the end.
"I just told you why :) God doesn't give us neon-lights from the sky telling us what to do."
Perhaps not, but he apparently possesses you with his spirit, which should at LEAST be able to tell you if an action pleases him or not. If it can't even do that it must be either defective or nonexistent, I will have to leave it to you to determine which, as I am not possessed by any spirits with which to experiment with.
"But He gives us the Bible and our conscience and a mind that can make rational decisions."
Supposedly. However, I would rely more on the mind that can make rational decisions, as the bible is pretty inconsistent and the conscience seems to be fairly subjective in nature.
"He could do everything for us... but then why create us at all if we are just robots?"
Beats me, but would it really make any less sense than making us sick and commanding us to be well on pain of eternal torture and anguish? I don't think so. Seems to me that most of what your god has supposedly done has been pretty irrational and counterproductive.
"We buy real animals instead of robotic animals because we love it when they do their own thing (to a certain extent) and we love it when they obey us."
I own a cat, they don't obey. I suppose I just don't love it enough to torture it for eternity for not listening to me.
"We could get robotic animals that do everything we program them to do..."
No, we can't actually, robotics isn't quite that advanced yet.
"but there is no relationship there."
My son did, actually, have a robotic puppy. When it broke he cried for days and asked if we were going to have a funeral for it. In the end, I wound up having a funeral for a robotic puppy.
"God could do everything for us... but there would be no relationship."
I have raised and infant, there language does not yet exist to express just how wrong and misguided this statement is, so I am not even going to try.
"That's what He wants in the end."
Then he is going the WRONG way about it.
If the Holy Spirit told us everything we should do... we wouldn't do it because of anything on our end (love, trust, faith). We would just be following step by step instructions.
Well, the Bible and our conscious (along with the mind) has been good enough to shape the entire Western World. Christianity has been the foundation for so many things. Not bad, in my opinion. Now it's growing into Asia and Africa. There is a reason the Buddhist and Hinduist scriptures aren't leading to worldwide growth (New Age is growing, not those Eastern religions).
And to respond to most of the middle of your post, I think the thing atheists forget is that God created the world perfect. There was no sickness or death (outside of cellular death and the like) or violence. This is what God wanted. MAN decided he didn't like the perfect world God had made... and rebelled. Now, if you are God, what are you going to do? If you let sin (disobedience) go, that goes against your just nature. It must be punished. So He punishes it. Now, you don't like His punishment (Hell), but that's not up to you to decide.
So many people decide not to believe Christianity because they don't "like" a particular doctrine. But you let me know the moment when truth is dependent on what you like. I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE Hell. I don't even like to think about it. But I know that truth is not dependent on what I like :( I have to believe it, along with the rest (Heaven).
Well, if your son had a relationship with a robot... I'm not gonna judge :) I feel bad for him. I guess I would feel sad if my computer broke... but I wouldn't say I had a relationship with it.
And you may not even try to show my how wrong my statement is about having a relationship with someone you have to do everything for... but tell me, with that infant, were you the one making it cry and laugh and play and move? Or did the youngster do that on its own? Even infants do something in their relationship with you. They aren't robots (which is what I'm talking about).
And as for your parting remark, I can't say I agree with you. When I go to Heaven and I see billions upon billions upon billions of people there... I say God (Who didn't have to save a single soul) is a pretty just and fair God.
ilovequestons - "I think the thing atheists forget is that God created the world perfect. "
Too funny.
I'm glad I could make you laugh :)
"If the Holy Spirit told us everything we should do... we wouldn't do it because of anything on our end (love, trust, faith)."
Bullshit, we have people telling us what we should do all the time, it is still our choice whether to do it or not, at worst it would only make the will of your god clearer and less prone to corruption or misinterpretation.
"We would just be following step by step instructions."
Most Christians are pretty much doing that anyway, so I am not seeing the problem here.
"Well, the Bible and our conscious (along with the mind) has been good enough to shape the entire Western World. Christianity has been the foundation for so many things. Not bad, in my opinion. Now it's growing into Asia and Africa. There is a reason the Buddhist and Hinduist scriptures aren't leading to worldwide growth (New Age is growing, not those Eastern religions)."
I hate to break it to you, but both Buddhism and Hinduism are still alive and growing, and have shaped the philosophy and culture of the east as much as Christianity has influenced the west. As far as growth is concerned, the "nones" are outpacing just about any other group in growth, it won't be long before this country and society have to start taking nonreligious people seriously. But that isn't what should REALLY scare you, which is that worship of Islam is currently outpacing Christianity, so the "growth" of a religion does not in any way make it less false.
"And to respond to most of the middle of your post, I think the thing atheists forget is that God created the world perfect."
If you mean that the Earth was at any time perfect in the past, I know far too much about how it accreted from the protoplanetary debris field leftover from the birth of our sun to believe that, the Earth was at no time ever perfect. In fact, for a great deal of the time the planet Earth has been around, it would have been toxic to humans in just about every aspect.
"There was no sickness or death (outside of cellular death and the like) or violence."
Cellular death is the main cause of actual death, I'm afraid, so you aren't actually dodging anything by trying to add entropy to the mix. On top of that, there is no biological system in the universe that could last forever, because such a system is patently impossible. The Earth was also a hostile and violent place long before we came along.
"This is what God wanted. MAN decided he didn't like the perfect world God had made... and rebelled."
Except that isn't actually the story. The real story of your religion is that god made a being to ignorant to know the difference between right and wrong, and when it disobeyed, cursed it with scarcely unimaginable horror. You know, because it is a such a swell deity and all.
"Now, if you are God, what are you going to do?"
That is easy, my child disobeys all the time, I love him and forgive him after giving him a punishment that is befitting of the action, if any. I don't lock him in the basement and torture him forever, nor would I ever threaten to, because I actually do love my child.
"If you let sin (disobedience) go, that goes against your just nature."
But it would be in alignment with a merciful nature, which he is also supposed to have, so we have a conundrum. Perfect justice cannot exist with ANY mercy, and perfect mercy cannot exist with ANY justice, meaning you actually DO have to pick one.
"It must be punished."
A disobedient child might be punished, but when has any child ever been punished without mercy and infinitely greater than their transgression? That is not punishment, that is abuse, and only someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome would continue to keep justifying it.
"So He punishes it. Now, you don't like His punishment (Hell), but that's not up to you to decide."
Infinite punishment for finite crime is not justice by even the loosest definition of the word, it is simply cruel and malicious, you are not making a good case for your god.
"So many people decide not to believe Christianity because they don't "like" a particular doctrine."
I don't think it is because they simply don't "like" it, but rather that they can't reconcile it. A JUST and LOVING god could never, ever, do this, period. By definition it couldn't, that means either you are completely wrong about hell, or your religion is bullshit. Some people don't have the cognitive dissonance to continue reconciling the irreconcilable, and simply admit the truth, it requires far less mental gymnastics and semantic tennis.
"But you let me know the moment when truth is dependent on what you like."
It isn't, that is part of the reason I am an atheist.
"I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE Hell. I don't even like to think about it."
I bet not.
"But I know that truth is not dependent on what I like :( I have to believe it, along with the rest (Heaven)."
Only if you believe in Christianity, I don't, so I don't have to believe any of it, I am free to accept or reject these concept on their own merits. Both of them are logically and rationally bankrupt as concepts.
"Well, if your son had a relationship with a robot... I'm not gonna judge :) I feel bad for him. I guess I would feel sad if my computer broke... but I wouldn't say I had a relationship with it."
People can get emotionally attached to robots too, the only thing that would prevent it being a relationship like with any other being is a lack of reciprocation, as long as the ability to reciprocate feelings was there(which it would be in the examples you are using) then it would be a relationship of sorts.
"And you may not even try to show my how wrong my statement is about having a relationship with someone you have to do everything for... but tell me, with that infant, were you the one making it cry and laugh and play and move?"
In your analogy, your god wouldn't be making us do those things, it would any be letting us know which was desired(which parents do as well). It would NOT be forcing you to do it, so your analogy fails rather spectacularly.
"Or did the youngster do that on its own? Even infants do something in their relationship with you. They aren't robots (which is what I'm talking about)."
No, you are making a rather false equivocation. No one ever said anything about taking away our agency, but rather giving us proper information, which your religion utterly fails to do.
"And as for your parting remark, I can't say I agree with you. When I go to Heaven and I see billions upon billions upon billions of people there..."
Except you don't know if even a billion people will be there, as a matter of fact the bible pretty much talks about it as if very few will make it, making this statement rather null.
"I say God (Who didn't have to save a single soul)"
Save a single soul from what? Eternal torment that he created to punish those souls for not living up to his impossible expectations? That isn't "saving" someone, that is not being a capricious megalomaniacal bully.
"is a pretty just and fair God."
Only if you completely ignore the actual meaning and value of both of those words.
Pages