The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked," "bad," "hurt," "harm," "ill," "sorrow," "mischief," "displeased," "adversity," "affliction," "trouble," "calamity," "grievous," "misery," and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV."

Could you explain which of these alternatives get us back to a benevolent (oops! sorry omni-benevolent) god?

That's as smart as saying "As for Deuteronomy, or any other famous historical characters..." or "Acts of the Apostles may have been wise but he ..." Google Lao Tsu before you make yourself look even sillier.

"..the Hebrew word for evil, "rah," is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked," "bad," "hurt," "harm," "ill," "sorrow," "mischief," "displeased," "adversity," "affliction," "trouble," "calamity," "grievous," "misery," and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV."

"If there's no God telling us to be kind, then I say its survival of the fittest. I should oppress as many as possible to make my own position better."
Then by all means keep your religion. You'll still be a sociopath, but at least you won't be stabbing me or eating my lunch. Just try to avoid being Torquemada, Jerry Falwell or any of the many other massive douches whose religion gave their doucheyness extra force.

I want to know which argument to smack down.

On a different point, I love the conclusion. "the next step - a lifelong step - is to forsake fantasy, treat others with kindness and make the most of the one life we are fortunate to have."

Why is the next step to treat others with kindness? We don't have to do that at all. If there's no God telling us to be kind, then I say its survival of the fittest. I should oppress as many as possible to make my own position better. Millions throughout history have arrived at the same conclusion with horrific consequences.

The only thing true about me being a "true" Christian (as you say) is that I am saved by grace and not of some choice I made previously. Jesus Christ is a Spirit and He drew me to Himself. My decision to follow Him is rooted in the fact that He first loved me and now I choose to follow His ways and not my carnal mind. In fact, He did say that "if He will be lifted in the Earth that He WILL draw men to Himself."

Why is saving even needed? Isn't God perfect? How can we then be imperfect? A perfect Carpenter builds a true cabinet, not a crooked one.

As for Tao Te Ching, or any other famous historical characters, Jesus Christ is the only way to the Creator of our universe. Oh yeah, Hw is also the only One to be raised from the dead! Tao Te Ching may have been wise but he is underground now.

It is apparent that your "decision" to follow Christ mentioned above was not an informed decision, and thus must be regarded as either social programming, or whim.

I suppose you are one of these thieves that Jesus mentioned because you have lifted you carnal, although intelligent, mind above the Lord Himself. You have to wonder why He chose me and not you? But don't fret He will draw you later.

Aside from the rude name-calling, I find your smugness to be both unChristian, and all too common in so-called believers. Rather than preach here, go practice some apparently needed introspection.

eta: Also, it wasn't the trees of "good and evil"; it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life. And if God created evil in order for us to know the good, then why did he forbid Adam to eat from the Tree of Knowledge?

That sentiment might have had some merit in the court of Saul, but to repeat it since the Enlightenment is nothing but propaganda and a flagrant lie. There are millions of people doing good without God, including the outstanding humanist who hosts this blog.

Throughout history, many books and scholars have written about morals and ethics but there has been only one person to solve humanity's moral and ethical dilemma once and for all. Jesus Christ became a sacrifice for all of humanity by dying for all of us.

Oh yeah? OK, so maybe you can explain how killing an innocent person somehow makes up for "sins" committed by others? Next time someone is convicted for murder, if an anonymous person who has committed no crime offers to do the convicted murderer's jail sentence, do you think that we should allow that to happen and set the murderer free?

Therefore, the blood of Christ destroyed death and His life provided an example of morals and ethics.

So, if we see people doing things we don't like, we should fashion whips and attack them like Jesus does in John 2? How about before we help people we should make them debase themselves and say that they are like dogs like Jesus does in Matt 15? Or maybe any of these other instances of immoral teachings?

Oh yeah, Hw is also the only One to be raised from the dead!

Except for all those other pesky gods that have also risen from the dead.