A question for Christians: what IS God?

[Dionysus]

... and by this, I don't want your typical platitudes.

I require, in specifics, exactly what God is. I find the phrase 'God is Love', for instance, to be highly suspect: it refers to an unstable, nebulous inner passion as if it were a Platonic Form. So instead I'd like something a bit more concrete - what is the ontological nature of God? Is it a being or Being? Does it live as we do? Is it sentient in any intelligible sense? Is it static or permeable? What, if any, is its purpose? And, most importantly, what does it feel like to the believer, who supposes himself to have direct contact with it through the mediation of the Holy Spirit?

Please, no romantic semantics (lulz, rhyme). 'God is Love', 'God is Triune', and so forth will not do. In short, I want a daseinalysis of God. What is its Being?

[McCulloch]

Start from the beginning. God is the creator, and the "force" or "power" that breathed life into man which was created from the dust of the earth.

Therefore, God is:
1. Creator
2. The source of life.

That does not address the question of what is God. God creates -- that is what God does. God is the source of life -- that says where life comes from but not what God is.

God is not force or power within the accepted definitions of those words. You may say that God exerts an irresistible force or has unlimited power, but not that he is either of those things.

Rusty Preaching and not addressing the question (again):

Man was originally created in the image (character) of God, but the freedom that comes from love allowed man to choose to disregard the character of God. God did not create robots, rather He desires His creation to WANT to know Him. Those who reject God do not want to know Him. They choose their own destiny by rejecting the source of life.

To know God requires the Truth about God's character. A return to the image in which man was originally created. This can be done by believing the Truth of the Gospels and understanding the example of God's forgiveness in the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus.

Rusty Pontificating on the Character of God

Remember, God is love. Love has an aspect of forgiveness. Love without forgiveness simply would not be love.

Then God is not love unless forgiveness is universal.

Another aspect of God is righteousness, an understanding of right and wrong with a desire to do what is right.

One word: Euthyphro.

But, God is Truth.

Then why do so many of his followers keep lying?

This is where the Word of God must be consulted to correctly assess the accusations put forth by men.

Is there any support that any particular collection of writings is the Word of God?

Having Ignored the debate Rusty launches into More Preaching

Wavering faith will lead you into deception. The "feeling" will be lost. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and with all your mind, and lean not on your own understanding." Mature the "feeling." Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Do not depart from it.

Being born of the Word of God is a process. It takes a relationship. It takes a love for the Creator who breathed life into your body. It takes a love for the Savior who gave His life for the forgiveness of men who do not know God.

Love God first, and He will teach you how to love your family, friends, and neighbors. Love righteousness first, and He will lead you out of error into life. A life full of a love for the lost who do not know God, nor love Him. Store up and treasure memories sharing this love with those who want it, with those who desire to also choose life.

Doesn't this world need more love and righteousness? And less foolishness and the suffering that goes with it?

[bernee51]

Start from the beginning. God is the creator, ...

You want to start from the beginning? OK, who created god?

...and the "force" or "power" that breathed life into man which was created from the dust of the earth.

What breathed life into god - or isn't god alive?

To know God requires the Truth about God's character.

As we were create by god "in his image' to know god's character we need only look within. So we need only answer the question "Who am I?" Do you want to have a go. Others seem to be having the usual difficulties arriving at an answer.

Remember, God is love. Love has an aspect of forgiveness. Love without forgiveness simply would not be love.

And, as I have shown, love with conditions is not love. You have yet to deal with this conundrum.

[rusty]

McCulloch wrote:
Then God is not love unless forgiveness is universal.

bernee51 wrote:
And, as I have shown, love with conditions is not love. You have yet to deal with this conundrum.

Boy, what logic do you guys use to make such statements?

Logically God's forgiveness is universal and without conditions. It is offered to every man and woman, no matter what offenses they are guilty of. Universal and unconditional. Logical.

Now that "foregiveness" has been established, what is the logical next step? LEAVE BEHIND THE ERROR! Isn't that LOGICAL??????? What's the matter? Oh, you don't want to leave behind error? If you must leave behind error in order to love your Creator, then you don't want anything to do with your Creator? What is it that keeps you enslaved? What do you love more than God? More than righteousness?

There is a right and a wrong that has existed since the beginning. There is a Spirit of love available for mankind. There is an understanding of your fellow man AND his relationship to God, or lack of it, available. I wish you were open to that possibility.

I am becoming disturbed by this debate board. I thought it might be a cool place for Christians to discuss, build up, and encourage one another. Evidently, it is a magnet for those who wish to scoff at Christanity and the God of the Bible. Much of the debate fails to go beyond scoffing and a demand for "evidence." The evidence is obvious to the one who DOES the will of God. The one who LOVES can see love. God is love. The one who desires righteousness can see righteousness, and the lack of a desire to do righteousness, in men/women around him/her.

Is there anyone who wishes to KNOW this God? Is there anyone who is capable of throwing off the nonsense? Is there anyone who is willing to allow God to define right and wrong, good and evil, and love and hate? Why does man want to lift himself above God by loving his own understanding of right and wrong, rather than seeking God's definition of right and wrong?

Find God. His forgiveness is universal and unconditional, but he wants to lead you out of error and away from the nonsense of men/women.
rusty

[McCulloch]

Then God is not love unless forgiveness is universal.

And, as I have shown, love with conditions is not love. You have yet to deal with this conundrum.

Logically God's forgiveness is universal and without conditions. It is offered to every man and woman, no matter what offenses they are guilty of. Universal and unconditional. Logical.

So you agree. Good. I am therefore forgiven by God in spite of my unbelief. God's forgiveness is without conditions, right? I'm beginning to like your God, he is so different from the God that many Christians promote, who only forgives the faithful.

Now that "foregiveness" has been established, what is the logical next step? LEAVE BEHIND THE ERROR! Isn't that LOGICAL??????? What's the matter?

Something is disturbing you, if the caps lock and excessive punctuation are any indicator. I seek truth and wish to leave behind error. Show me some evidence that it is true that there is a God; that Jesus was the Son of God; that the Bible is the Word of God; and I will leave behind my error. Isn't that logical?

If you must leave behind error in order to love your Creator, then you don't want anything to do with your Creator? What is it that keeps you enslaved? What do you love more than God? More than righteousness?

Do I have a Creator? Is there a God? Evidence please.

There is a right and a wrong that has existed since the beginning.

Wrong. Right and wrong are useful human constructions. There is no evidence that right and wrong exist outside of human society, is there?

There is a Spirit of love available for mankind. There is an understanding of your fellow man AND his relationship to God, or lack of it, available. I wish you were open to that possibility.

I am open to that possibility. Show me some evidence that your hypothesis is true and I will evaluate it skeptically but fairly.

I am becoming disturbed by this debate board. I thought it might be a cool place for Christians to discuss, build up, and encourage one another.

Where did you get that idea? The Welcome page specifies that this is a debating site for people of any belief system. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? What part of debate do you not understand? Did you expect to meet only with those who agree with you in debate?

Or did you only want to preach?

[Biker]

... and by this, I don't want your typical platitudes.

I require, in specifics, exactly what God is. I find the phrase 'God is Love', for instance, to be highly suspect: it refers to an unstable, nebulous inner passion as if it were a Platonic Form. So instead I'd like something a bit more concrete - what is the ontological nature of God? Is it a being or Being? Does it live as we do? Is it sentient in any intelligible sense? Is it static or permeable? What, if any, is its purpose? And, most importantly, what does it feel like to the believer, who supposes himself to have direct contact with it through the mediation of the Holy Spirit?

Please, no romantic semantics (lulz, rhyme). 'God is Love', 'God is Triune', and so forth will not do. In short, I want a daseinalysis of God. What is its Being?

I require in specifics, exactly what God is.

The than which no greater can be thought.

Biker

[LittlePig]

Then God is not love unless forgiveness is universal.

And, as I have shown, love with conditions is not love. You have yet to deal with this conundrum.

Logically God's forgiveness is universal and without conditions. It is offered to every man and woman, no matter what offenses they are guilty of. Universal and unconditional. Logical.

So you agree. Good. I am therefore forgiven by God in spite of my unbelief. God's forgiveness is without conditions, right? I'm beginning to like your God, he is so different from the God that many Christians promote, who only forgives the faithful.

Love is an awfully vague word.

I love chocolate. But I will throw it in the trash if it is a bad brand or if it is old and has become chalky. And I still love chocolate in general even though I throw some of it away. If the bad chocolate were able to make itself good again, or if I could 'freshen it up' in some way, I would love it enough to eat it.

I think the Bible portrays YHWH as loving and valuing human life in general, but she is willing to destroy large amounts of human life that do not meet her conditions. So if there is anything accurate to say about YHWH and love, it is that she loves some people more than others. I do not know of anything in the Bible that says that YHWH loves unconditionally. I think that is mostly marketing hyperbole.

Interestingly enough, if we attempt to learn anything about YHWH's nature from Nature itself, we find something completely opposite from unconditional love. The natural world is absolutely self-centered and incredibly violent. Some animals will destroy offspring from their own species and community to ensure that their own DNA is that which is passed down. Parents sometimes destroy their own particular offspring with no regard even to the transmission of their DNA. Pretty much everything thrives by destroying something else. If art says something about the artist, and creation says something about the creator, what does Nature say about YHWH? Does it paint a picture of unconditional love?

Biker

The than which no greater can be thought.

And since you must have actually thought of or imagined 'the than' in question prior to running out of things that are greater (and imaginable, I presume), what was that greatest thing you imagined? Can you describe it to us?

Do you realize you have just described a finite thing? This must mean that your God is not infinite in any way, and that creates an entirely new problem for Christian cosmologists.

[Biker]

Then God is not love unless forgiveness is universal.

And, as I have shown, love with conditions is not love. You have yet to deal with this conundrum.

Logically God's forgiveness is universal and without conditions. It is offered to every man and woman, no matter what offenses they are guilty of. Universal and unconditional. Logical.

So you agree. Good. I am therefore forgiven by God in spite of my unbelief. God's forgiveness is without conditions, right? I'm beginning to like your God, he is so different from the God that many Christians promote, who only forgives the faithful.

Love is an awfully vague word.

I love chocolate. But I will throw it in the trash if it is a bad brand or if it is old and has become chalky. And I still love chocolate in general even though I throw some of it away. If the bad chocolate were able to make itself good again, or if I could 'freshen it up' in some way, I would love it enough to eat it.

I think the Bible portrays YHWH as loving and valuing human life in general, but she is willing to destroy large amounts of human life that do not meet her conditions. So if there is anything accurate to say about YHWH and love, it is that she loves some people more than others. I do not know of anything in the Bible that says that YHWH loves unconditionally. I think that is mostly marketing hyperbole.

Interestingly enough, if we attempt to learn anything about YHWH's nature from Nature itself, we find something completely opposite from unconditional love. The natural world is absolutely self-centered and incredibly violent. Some animals will destroy offspring from their own species and community to ensure that their own DNA is that which is passed down. Parents sometimes destroy their own particular offspring with no regard even to the transmission of their DNA. Pretty much everything thrives by destroying something else. If art says something about the artist, and creation says something about the creator, what does Nature say about YHWH? Does it paint a picture of unconditional love?

Biker

The than which no greater can be thought.

And since you must have actually thought of or imagined 'the than' in question prior to running out of things that are greater (and imaginable, I presume), what was that greatest thing you imagined? Can you describe it to us?

Do you realize you have just described a finite thing? This must mean that your God is not infinite in any way, and that creates an entirely new problem for Christian cosmologists.

Evidently you haven't read and understood my post.
The question is: "What is God?"
I said, the than which no greater can be thought.

what was the greatest thing you imagined

Off topic.


Biker

[rusty]

McCulloch wrote:
So you agree. Good. I am therefore forgiven by God in spite of my unbelief. God's forgiveness is without conditions, right? I'm beginning to like your God, he is so different from the God that many Christians promote, who only forgives the faithful.

You are forgiven (or will be) when you turn from error and walk toward God. As it is now, you are under the consequences established when God said, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." However, an offer has been made, a door has been opened for you to know and love God. YOU must choose to walk through it, God is not going to throw a lasso out the door and drag you in.

Something is disturbing you, if the caps lock and excessive punctuation are any indicator. I seek truth and wish to leave behind error. Show me some evidence that it is true that there is a God; that Jesus was the Son of God; that the Bible is the Word of God; and I will leave behind my error. Isn't that logical?

Yes, your blindness disturbs me.

If I had a time machine, I might be able to take you back to the time when and where Jesus walked the earth. Perhaps then your mind would be opened and relieved from the blindness of spiritual, right and wrong, and loving things/concepts.

How is this for logic?.......: All knowledge in existance comes from man/men/women. I repeat, logically, ALL knowledge comes from mankind....... Unless you or someone has recieved the truth from "a god." Have you been guided by "a god" in your search for truth? Are you specially gifted to determine truth "objectively" with the influence of the "evolution" of man's knowledge. Wait!... You have rejected other men's wisdom by saying, "Show me some evidence that it is true that there is a God; that Jesus was the Son of God; that the Bible is the Word of God;" The evidence you seek cannot be authored by "the evolution" of men because you have objectively rejected the truth spoken by men and the men who wrote the Bible. What "evidence" has led you to believe/accept the evolution of man's knowledge and man's societal norms and more`s?

Where do you turn now? How do you know what is truth, especially if it is spoken by men? Perhaps you can consult "reason." What construct of man is "reason?" Who taught you how to "reason?" What is "reason" based on? Whose "truth," whose definition of "right and wrong" is reason based on?

It is reasonable to know that there are many things that are wrong, and reasonable to know that many things are right. Perhaps this is because man's heart was designed to recieve and accept "right." What then, causes man to reject God's truth as it is written in the Bible? Pride? Ego? Why reject the fact that men/women are born ignorant of God?

So, you are left with a choice. Which men are you going to believe? Worldly men? Men of the Bible? Or self, the spirit of self and pride within your mind and heart?

I found "self" to be full of error. I lost my ego and accepted my ignorance of God as fact and truth. I found worldly men to be just as full of error as my "self." I found "love" to be the source of truth, right and wrong, and life. By loving the rightness described in the Bible, I have learned to reason according to God's definition of right and wrong. I have rejected the error of men because it lacks the love that man lacks. It lacks God. God is love.

rusty wrote:
There is a Spirit of love available for mankind. There is an understanding of your fellow man AND his relationship to God, or lack of it, available. I wish you were open to that possibility.

I am open to that possibility. Show me some evidence that your hypothesis is true and I will evaluate it skeptically but fairly.

Unfortunately, efforts by the church to condemn sin has led a great portion of society to believe that the coming of Jesus brought hellfire and damnation. That is the opposite of what is true. Hellfire and damnation existed before Jesus came. It is the result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Jesus came to deliver us from evil, to lead us into the knowledge of "good" which naturally fits in the heart and mind of men because it was designed to fit in the beginning. Leave the error that the Bible describes as error behind, and your blindness will be removed. Believe the truth of the Bible over the "truth" of men and "self." Love God, love "love," and learn to love your family, friends, and neighbors. There is one scary drawback to this. Should you find this truth, the fact that your family, friends, and neighbors haven't found it is quite unsettling. The condition of the church becomes unsettling. You may become like me, obsessed with pointing out the great gift of love and forgiveness offered to mankind, and obsessed with sharing the great gift of "love" (God's version) which is found in the Bible. Jesus came to save, not condemn. The world is under the consequences of disobedience, already. I would like to help bring some good men out of that.

Where did you get that idea? The Welcome page specifies that this is a debating site for people of any belief system. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? What part of debate do you not understand? Did you expect to meet only with those who agree with you in debate?

Or did you only want to preach?

I was expecting to find a few people like me. I am happy that there is a debate with people like you, but where are the people like me?

As far as preaching goes, it is impossible to speak of God without speaking of right and wrong. People like you become offended at firm concepts of right and wrong, and the consequences of wrong. Even the benefits of of right offend you. I can tell because you keep steering the debate back to "evidence." Well, I can't put God in an evidence bag that cops use at crime scenes...........
rusty

[Zzyzx]

.

You are forgiven (or will be) when you turn from error and walk toward God.

How can you promise that with certainty? You are attempting to influence another person’s life and decisions based on YOUR opinion that you know truth more than anyone else knows truth. That is an awesome responsibility.

Can your “knowledge of truth” be shown to be anything other than imagination or delusion?

As it is now, you are under the consequences established when God said, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Which god said that? Is it a verbatim quote – by whom?

Does that mean that ignorance is approved by god and knowledge is not? That might help explain a preference for ignorance by some believers.

Yes, your blindness disturbs me.

Does YOUR “blindness” disturb you? Do the limits you place upon thinking by insisting that supernatural “explanations” apply to natural and human events somehow NOT disturb you? Are you aware that they exist?

If I had a time machine, I might be able to take you back to the time when and where Jesus walked the earth.

If the claims you make were true you would NOT need a “time machine”. You would simply cite evidence of truth that anyone could verify. Surely a “miracle worker” and “teacher of multitudes” left unquestionable evidences that can be viewed by anyone.

Proposing “secret truths” and “special knowledge” negates the possibility of presenting convincing evidence or argument.

Perhaps then your mind would be opened and relieved from the blindness of spiritual, right and wrong, and loving things/concepts.

Have you traveled in a “time machine” to KNOW that what you say is true?

If you have not traveled in a time machine, how do you know that what you read in a book is true?

How is this for logic?.......: All knowledge in existance comes from man/men/women. I repeat, logically, ALL knowledge comes from mankind....... Unless you or someone has recieved the truth from "a god." Have you been guided by "a god" in your search for truth? Are you specially gifted to determine truth "objectively" with the influence of the "evolution" of man's knowledge. Wait!... You have rejected other men's wisdom by saying, "Show me some evidence that it is true that there is a God; that Jesus was the Son of God; that the Bible is the Word of God;" The evidence you seek cannot be authored by "the evolution" of men because you have objectively rejected the truth spoken by men and the men who wrote the Bible. What "evidence" has led you to believe/accept the evolution of man's knowledge and man's societal norms and more`s?

Yes . . . . . . and when will you present some logic for consideration?

Where do you turn now? How do you know what is truth, especially if it is spoken by men?

I seek truth by evaluating evidence from wide sources. The process is known as learning. It involves observation, analysis, evaluation, judgment, reasoning, testing, re-evaluating, etc.

I realize that many prefer a short-cut that avoids the messiness of evaluating and deciding – by simply “believing” what is written in ancient texts or contained in religious dogma. That is MUCH simpler and is very appealing to many people.

Perhaps you can consult "reason." What construct of man is "reason?" Who taught you how to "reason?" What is "reason" based on? Whose "truth," whose definition of "right and wrong" is reason based on?

Yes, Rusty, REASONING and reasons – the bane of religion. (bane means “a source of harm or ruin”). Reason is NOT consistent with beliefs based upon hearsay and emotion rather than evidence and knowledge.

It is reasonable to know that there are many things that are wrong, and reasonable to know that many things are right. Perhaps this is because man's heart was designed to recieve and accept "right."

Hearts pump blood. There is no evidence to indicate that they “receive right”. That seems like “religio-babble”.

What then, causes man to reject God's truth as it is written in the Bible? Pride? Ego?

Absence of evidence of truth – grandiose supernatural claims that cannot be verified

Why reject the fact that men/women are born ignorant of God?

I accept that statement AND propose that it should continue through life.

So, you are left with a choice. Which men are you going to believe? Worldly men? Men of the Bible?

Are there only two choices – “worldly men” and “men of the bible”? Are there “men of the koran"? Are there WOMEN?

I option for choosing to accept KNOWLEDGE rather than hearsay and emotion based on ancient ignorance of nature.

Or self, the spirit of self and pride within your mind and heart?

I option to respect and depend upon the SELF and upon other humans with whom I associate rather than upon supposed supernatural beings that cannot be shown to exist except in the imagination of believers.

I found "self" to be full of error.

That does not seem to have changed.

I lost my ego and accepted my ignorance of God as fact and truth.

Apparently you did lose your ego

Merriam Webster

Ego: the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality

“Mediation between the person and reality” and “perception of and adaptation to reality” are key phrases. I would tend to agree that you have a problem with lost ego.

I found worldly men to be just as full of error as my "self."

You indicate a very low opinion of humanity and of yourself AND you project those characteristics onto others.

I was expecting to find a few people like me.

Perhaps you would be more likely to find such people in “Christians only” preaching sites. Would you like some links?

Do you tire of the preachings of others that differ from your preachings? Can you comprehend that others might respond similarly to your efforts to preach to the uninterested?

I am happy that there is a debate with people like you, but where are the people like me?

Do you really want an answer to that question?

As far as preaching goes, it is impossible to speak of God without speaking of right and wrong.

It IS possible for others to speak of god without “speaking of right and wrong” as demonstrated by rational Theists. That is a limitation you place upon yourself and attempt to project upon others.

People like you become offended at firm concepts of right and wrong, and the consequences of wrong.

Kindly identify “people like you”.

Correction: many people become offended by promotion of PHONY concepts of what constitutes “right and wrong” by people who insist that morals be based upon THEIR favorite gods and religions.

Even the benefits of of right offend you. I can tell because you keep steering the debate back to "evidence."

Yes, the request for evidence offends Theists who possess “faith” and emotion in lieu of evidence. It must be very difficult to admit that one’s ideas have no foundation in reality but are based on hearsay and personal emotion.

Well, I can't put God in an evidence bag that cops use at crime scenes...........

Agreed. You can supply NO evidence that gods exist OR that your favorite god is “real” and those favored by others are “false”.

[rusty]

Zzyzx wrote:
Hearts pump blood. There is no evidence to indicate that they “receive right”. That seems like “religio-babble”.

Webster's dictionary defines "heart" as: 5. the human heart considered as the source of human emotions, personality attributes, etc.; specif., a) inmost thought and feeling; conciousness or conscience [to know in one's heart] b) the source of emotions: contrasted with HEAD, the source of intelect c) one's emotional nature; dispostion [to have a kind heart] d) any of various humane feelings; love, devotion, sympathy, etc. e) mood; feeling [to have a heavy heart] f) spirit, resolution, or courage [to lose heart]

I'm not surprised that a guy with no "heart" would post the childish statement, "Hearts pump blood." without consulting Webster.

I know in my heart that there is a God. He is spirit. He is love. He resides in my heart. The kingdom of God is within me.

You have no heart, Z. You have a blood pumper. That is all you want or need. Unfortunately, this limits your understanding of knowledge. Why limit yourself. get a heart!

I option to respect and depend upon the SELF and upon other humans with whom I associate rather than upon supposed supernatural beings that cannot be shown to exist except in the imagination of believers.

Thank you for this, Z. It demonstrates perfectly that "self" without God has no heart.

I rely on humans, too. Men who knew God wrote the Bible. I rely on them and the Truth they spoke. Better them than men with no heart who twist, obfuscate, and deny the Truth.

Hmmm.....Hey Z, Personal question: Have you ever felt "guilt." Do you rationalize, twist, obfuscate, and deny the truth in order to bury the guilt in your heart? Oops, nevermind, you don't have a heart.

You indicate a very low opinion of humanity and of yourself AND you project those characteristics onto others.

I simply know that man is born sinful, and ignorant........

I desire to help God lead men/women out of sinfulness and ignorance. If I had a low opinion of humanity, I would favor abortion, genocide, famine, laziness, ignorance, injustice, disease, apathy...... You know, all the sinfull things that kill humanity.

It IS possible for others to speak of god without “speaking of right and wrong” as demonstrated by rational Theists. That is a limitation you place upon yourself and attempt to project upon others.

What God are they speaking of? It is impossible to speak of the God of the Bible without inserting His definition of right and wrong. He created the whole thing! Why shouldn't He get credit for establishing "right and wrong?" Right and wrong are part of the "heart" of God. Don't you wish to know God's heart? Or do you prefer to remain ignorant of it? Perhaps accepting the Truth causes you some guilt.....sorrow, etc.

Correction: many people become offended by promotion of PHONY concepts of what constitutes “right and wrong” by people who insist that morals be based upon THEIR favorite gods and religions.

See? Isn't that exactly how people without God's morals react? Are you that confused about which God is the right God? Or does this assist you in ignoring them all. SELF, that is all you need, right. There is nothing higher than SELF.

You know, I had a thought while reading the Bible. I thought you/we could replace the word "Satan" with the word "self" and the sentences would still be understandable. It is the "self" that leads a pedophile, the rapist, the drunkard, not God. Love wouldn't lead a man to rape.......

Agreed. You can supply NO evidence that gods exist OR that your favorite god is “real” and those favored by others are “false”.

See? You turned the debate back to evidence! Good grief! Right and wrong exists. No man has defined it. God defined it for us. Get over it! Stand up and admit your ignorance/rejection of God like a man. Let LOVE guide you rather than "self."
rusty