This is why they don't believe in God???

My facebook page sees fit for the last two days to choose as "top news" that some comedian-cum-philosopher won a "cultural humanism" lifetime achievement award. Good for him. I have no problems with groups I'm not aligned with choosing any character they want to honor, though I am mystified that FB thinks it's so important TO ME. But in looking into the deal (which I almost always end up regretting) I found this little ditty on why Christianity should be rejected.

Arguments Against Christianity
There are at least eight insurmountable problems within the extant evidence that each independently refute the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus:

Jesus' endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah;

Jesus' doctrine of "eternal punishment" in the "eternal fire" of Hell;

Jesus' failure to claim actual divinity;

Jesus' failed prophecy of his imminent return;

Jesus' failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness;

Jesus' failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;

Jesus' failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine;

Jesus' failure to recruit anyone from his family,
any acquaintance from before his baptism,
a majority of Palestinian Jews, and even
some of those who heard his words and witnessed his alleged miracles.

An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false.

Okay, all my Christian followers should stop laughing now, and let's go through this.
1. WTF is the "murderous immorality of Yahweh"? Are we referring to the wars fought to remove the Canaanites, I assume? Yes, God could have overcome that and chose not to. Why? #1, the people Israel were at a stage that it had to be proven to them that they could not get right with God on their own. They had to be given concrete rules, and find out that they (not God) were incapable of keeping them. Since they proved that they were generally incompetent even as they waited for said laws to make it down the mountain to them, it became obvious that they would never survive even the influence of the ridiculous pagan religions around them. The Canaanites were an exceptionally, ridiculously depraved lot. God ordered a strict separation, and yes, even extermination, of them. This becomes "murderous " in the eyes of those who attack the faith. But if you believe in a sovereign, perfectly Holy God, you see that 1) Paul said that all nature shows the manifest presence of God, so the Canaanites, like all of us, were without excuse. 2) They had been judged by a Holy God whom they rejected, and found wanting. If you recognize that God exists, and that He is the creator, then He has the right to judgement, and that is neither murderous nor, if Jesus is the manifest Word of this God, does it require refutation on His part.

2. Here is the humanist problem- if they're wrong, they go to Hell. No matter their "ethics" or "moral code based on reason and the good of mankind", etc. If Jesus would condemn them to perdition, he must be evil. The basic sin of Satan in the past and the Anti-Christ in the future- making oneself god. If God is creating a people unto Himself, and this people are not to be robots, and thus have to have a choice, there has to be a consequence for the wrong choice.

3. Another WTF. What could be more clear than John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I AM".

4.Mathew 24:36 clearly states that only the Father knows the day and time. And if the 13 billion years that scientists ascribe from the big bang to now can be 7 days in the eyes of a God who is the maker of, and thus beyond, time, how does the arguer (one Brian Holtz) propose to define "imminent"?

5. Here I can only challenge that "competently" is defined in terms of the author's own prejudices and desires. Otherwise I can only assume his trolley has chugged on around the bend, because, once again, Jesus' doctrines seem pretty clear to me.

6. How about water into wine at Cana? Or two rounds of loaves and fishes? Or, for that matter, walking around alive after His brutal death- something witness by over 500 people?

7. Christianity only became widespread after Constantine in the 300s AD. And most "contemporary" historians would have considered it an insignificant offshoot of Judaism, and likely lumped the two together. Reason would tell us this; but he who first cried for reason is often the last to apply it.

8. a) His mother was at His side at His death and at His grave at the Resurrection morning. Two brothers wrote epistles in the Christian cannon, and James His brother was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Mr. Holtz should go a little deeper into the Word than just the dust jacket.
b) First, His ministry BEGAN at His baptism, and second, the Gospels never mention ANY such acquaintances, so how does one know? We do have the mention of the synagogue at Nazareth, but if you read the whole passage, you'll see why that is the exception that proves the rule. If you use reason, that is.
c)The Word of God constantly talks about "the remnant" being saved. The Jews were prophesied BY GOD to reject Jesus. This dog don't hunt.
d)And now, in a crated world in which His manifestations are clearly evident so that people are without excuse, still many reject Him. What's your point?

An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false.

The key word in the above quote is "would". In actuality, this should be "could", because "would" implies that the knowledge forces corrective action. the truth is, while God is certainly capable of this corrective action, He chooses not to because it does not fit His plan. Plus, even if you take this whole thing as an exercise in debative literature, Holtz is guilty of so many lack-reads, mis-reads, and inserting his own prejudices into his interpretations that this whole thing has the structure of Swiss cheese and the smell of Limburger. One would think a philosopher with a background in computer science like Holtz would have a grasp on one thing leading logically to another, like a program. Unfortunately his reasoning is more on the GIGO theorem.

Mark, ch. 4, New International Version

11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”