Do Gods Exist? Can You Prove Gods Exist? Do They Even Have To Exist?

[Data]

Definitions

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.

Veneration: great respect; reverence:

Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality; continued survival; a way of living; any of a person's supposed current, future, or past lives on this earth; all that exists; a being or entity.

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated. A mortal man, an object, a fictional or mythological character, real or imagined, a concept like luck. Good or bad. To exist as a god could involve any of a number of specific applications. To exist literally, metaphorically, figuratively, as a fictional, metaphysical or mythological being, object or concept. In what specific sense any alleged god may exist may depend upon such context.

Questions for debate: Do gods exist? Can you prove they exist and do they even have to exist?

[POI]

You've repeatedly misrepresented my argument

No. I have not. Here are some points in which I have had to navigate, from you:

1) (direct quote) "In the dark ages you were an idiot if you didn't believe in the Bible and astrology. That was only true in the sense that you had to be educated (indoctrinated) and subsequently you could read and do math. Today if you don't "believe" in science (which is regarded as a contradiction in terms anyway, but probably isn't because knowledge is belief) you are an idiot, but in reality, it's no truer of science today than it was of theology then." (post 55). Here is where you attempt to establish that "we all need faith",<-- Sorry, but me using my quotes for your argument merely simplifies your tactic. Again, you are attempting to level the playing field. I also completely exposed your tactic when I asked a simple follow-up question. (post 146) "So in 50,000 years from now, we may discover that the earth is a flat/round disk?". For which you replied (post 147) "The answer is yes. Because what we "discover" isn't infallible.". Let's face it, your games are exposed. We all know you do not really believe what you are saying. So why should we believe anything you say here in this exchange? Maybe, as others have suggested --- you are just trolling?

2) I asked "Should we, or should we not, abide by logic?" You stated (direct quote) "not" (from post 149). Maybe this is exactly what it takes to believe? The claimed "God of the Bible", or "Jehovah'', defies logic. But please remember that you abide by your logic every day, whether you want to admit it or not. Without it, basic tasks would not be possible, you would believe all sorts of illogical claims, and your safety would be immediately compromised. But I guess we can go ahead and compartmentalize for 'Jehovah", but still use logic for everything else.

I could go on and on and on with how peculiar your responses are, but I do not have the patience, the energy, the interest, or the time. People can just read the exchange and find them all for themselves.

by changing my words, sometimes into quotes, into your own words.

Me putting quotes around words does not mean these are your direct quotes. I've been clear that I'm simplifying your argument(s), since it was you who asked that we keep things simple.

I don't trust you

Interesting. I know nothing about you. The only thing I know about you, is that when it comes to 'god arguments', your argumentation (thus far) sometimes reads disingenuous. One prime example was when I had to spend multiple responses re-explaining what I meant by 'nothing', when you already knew all along. It's another apologetic ploy to avoid, disrupt, and attempt to derail.

I don't like you.

You know nothing about me. This seems like a pretty hasty decision. But I guess, as you would say, and sorry I'm quoting you again, but if the shoe fits... --> "I don't care."

I don't think you're capable of providing your own argument,

Whose argument am I using then?

so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

Well, as you would say, "I don't trust you" here. I guess time will tell. But I do find it QUITE CONVENIENT you have decided to dip out when the rubber was going to start meeting the road (i.e.) Bring the evidence for Jehovah!

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm only going to say that it's Data doing it wrong, Data talking absurdity and data fiddling, pulling tricks and fiddling the discussion, and getting personal about it, too, not POI who is doing it wrong. The question is, how do others see it? Do even believers see that it's done wrong and wonder 'Am I doing that too?' or are the Faith -based believers going to side with him (or her - I don't know and it doesn't matter) because anyone bating for God, Jesus and the Bible is Right, even if they're doing it wrong.

[POI]

In essence, here's Data's tactics:

1) Believers in science have just as much "faith/trust" as believers in Jehovah. Thus, "faith/trust" in Jehovah is no more unreasonable than faith in anything.
2) When pressed for actual evidence of Jehovah, point directly back to the Bible; even though the Bible is the claim alone. Just like a history book is the claim alone, but not evidence for the claim.
3) Deliberately play dumb about the described term 'nothing', in the hopes to redirect.
4) Have no ability to explain why you believe a claim, where there exists no actual evidence to support it. (i.e.) the supernatural.
5) Provide lame videos which offer nothing to forward the conversation.
6) Because our logic is flawed at times, Jehovah may actually exist.
7) When pressed for evidence for Jehovah, make up excuses as to why you will no longer engage.

These are just some of the findings from the thread. I'm sure there is a lot more in which Data has committed. These are just some of the ones off the top of the dome.

[POI]

I'm only going to say that it's Data doing it wrong, Data talking absurdity and data fiddling, pulling tricks and fiddling the discussion, and getting personal about it, too, not POI who is doing it wrong. The question is, how do others see it? Do even believers see that it's done wrong and wonder 'Am I doing that too?' or are the Faith -based believers going to side with him (or her - I don't know and it doesn't matter) because anyone bating for God, Jesus and the Bible is Right, even if they're doing it wrong.

I think it's just another one of those topics in which has little new interest. Too much has been said and has also gone wrong. Many have prolly already bailed. No theists are even really engaging, period. At this point, maybe it is just you, myself, Data, a couple others, and some 'bots'.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm only going to say that it's Data doing it wrong, Data talking absurdity and data fiddling, pulling tricks and fiddling the discussion, and getting personal about it, too, not POI who is doing it wrong. The question is, how do others see it? Do even believers see that it's done wrong and wonder 'Am I doing that too?' or are the Faith -based believers going to side with him (or her - I don't know and it doesn't matter) because anyone bating for God, Jesus and the Bible is Right, even if they're doing it wrong.

I think it's just another one of those topics in which has little new interest. Too much has been said and has also gone wrong. Many have prolly already bailed. No theists are even really engaging, period. At this point, maybe it is just you, myself, Data, a couple others, and some 'bots'.

Maybe. Just now it is Transponder and 0 guests, not even a Bot.

[Data]

I'm antisocial and though I consider myself liberal, I constantly offend other liberals so I find myself in some sort of political disease hole where everyone who knows me says I'm whatever they are not. And I have noticed the opposite. We're so afraid of tyranny of the majority that we have allowed tyranny of the minority and sanctioned it. Special interests, big money, and corrupt representatives rule the day. Everyone intelligently voting on issues in their own interests with an eye to the fact that if they start playing hardball, everyone else will, might be better.

The temporal solution to many of mankind's problems is the removal of currency. Take away all forms of monetary incentive and the social and political corruption, most obvious in politics, science and religion, would vanish almost immediately. Science and technology could then thrive without being suppressed or abused by that corruption. We have had the ability to do that, increasingly, since the 1970s, but as with everything else, money gets in the way. Money (from the primitive to the current fractional reserve debt-based economy) has been useful but is now obsolete.

I entirely agree and I've tried to make this point before about slavery. The people in general have this naive belief that what is repugnant is just owning someone on paper. Oh, you're suffering two 40 hour jobs? Too bad; no bill of sale no deed you're not a slave. I have made the earnest attempt to show people this and they can't see. See?

People get used to things and then they become a part of them. They work inside the "machine" as cogs. You can't throw a wrench in the machine they are a part of and expect that to fix things. You can't destroy their world with the promise of something better when they are quite comfortable as unwitting slaves.

But here's the thing: If everyone agrees that this naive belief is right, and I am wrong, I can't go against that. This is now what morality is. I can argue for my sense of things just like I can argue for legalised murder, but if I go against the collective agreement, I err. I am still wrong. I am still immoral. I still broke the law (I mean, that's why we have laws). The fact that most people are colossally stupid is something I just have to accept. I still do have to defer to them. That's the difference between thinking I'm smarter than everyone else (which is just true) and thinking I'm better than everyone else, which can never be true.

That's an interesting way to put it. Yes. As a believer I have to follow the Bible's advice to respect the authorities and obey their laws unless they negate the law of God. So, I can observe and comment on the hypocrisy and corruption of religion and the world but I don't become a part of it in an idealistic fashion nor do I actively take part in protest or objection. I don't vote or try and influence society in any liturgical, legislative or judiciary way. That isn't the solution to our problems. Only Jehovah God can solve our fundamental problems. The world is temporal. Temporary. We could certainly do better, but ultimately only destroy ourselves. That's what impressed me so much about the Bible when I began my intense study, first as an atheist, then as a believer. If you take away all of the pagan nonsense adopted by the Abrahamic religions, Greek philosophy and mythology, and hold up the real Bible to the history of mankind, it's pretty obvious what's going on and how much the Bible has been misrepresented.

I agree that people can suffer misfortune because of what others have done. I disagree that if anyone is up there enforcing it, that it is morally righteous. The child suffering for his father's misdeed is not suffering because anyone willed it. A law that says, "Children of fathers who commit crimes are to be beaten," is wrong. You can reconcile this if God is not infinitely powerful in the way Christians think of him as being. But if he is infinitely powerful and wrote it onto the fabric of the universe he brought into being that people are going to suffer for what they did not do, then that's wrong. He ought to have written that no matter if your father sins, you are born innocent and without any special corruption or inclination to sin.

Christianity, in general, most certainly has gotten the Bible wrong, and the God concept, and that has passed on to the skeptics. They are skeptical of the "Christian" nonsensical rather than the actuality. It's like forming a negative opinion of someone based on what someone else said, and that someone got it all wrong.

And I more than agree with that Frank Herbert quote. I know these people who are slaves to their own desires. The biggest TV with the most pixels is not enough. The 4th sports car is not enough. I'll be honest: I raise cats and they cost about $3k each. My greed is cats. I love adding a new breeding queen. But I more love that I have them. If tomorrow, the stuff hit the fan and I could never get anymore, I would be much more happy with what I have than I would be pining for what I never could have.

I think it's a balance. Buddha got that right, I think. Too much stuff and you can't appreciate what you have; it's always more more more. Too little possessions and you starve. Cats need enrichment (toys, to be played with, affection, stuff like that) and so do people. Higher animals are not amoebas that only need what they strictly need: Food, water, and air. We need more to be happy and I think that's okay. But it absolutely can go too far and make someone miserable.

Freedom is the same. When you keep adding more rights, and more freedoms, piled up to the sky (*cough* Libertarians *cough*) you start making life worse for everyone, including yourself.

Agreed. Especially when we become idealistic, dogmatic, religious, ideological, nationalistic, etc. We start wanting everyone to be like us, the world to be reformed into our own paradigm. Siddhartha Gautama wasn't the only one the get that right, so did Li Er.

One of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the Bible, I think, is contextual.

No. At some point, words say what they say, and if this book is divinely inspired, those words are not meant to be ignored, and say what they say. A strike is not an insult; it is a physical attack. There is a categorical difference. The idea that people should suffer physical attacks meekly is evil. The idea that anyone should suffer any attack without the right to retaliation in kind, is evil. People breaking a good rule doesn't mean replace it with a bad one. It means, enforce the good rule, better.

If a person says "I'm going to kill him" and that someone dies you can't prosecute that someone based upon what they said in specific context. For example, a son, enraged or even only annoyed, might use the phrase in that context which would be remarkably different than someone whispering the phrase to an illegal arms dealer he just bought a high-powered rifle from. Keeping in mind that a) the Bible is an uninspired and fallible translation of an inspired and infallible text. b) it was given to specific people in a specific time for a specific reason long ago. People take clips of the Bible out of context much like the corporate media take sound bites out of context today. For their own personal agenda. You can have an idealistic preference or objection to something that Jesus said to his followers 2,000 years ago under the circumstances I gave in the explanation or you can try and look at it through the lens of your own cultural and temporal ideology. They didn't think a slap or beating a slave or child with a rod was a physical assault. So, your objection is already, not only biased, but imposing its own context.

I agree with you about institutionalised religion but in the case of Christianity, the yokes and chains to enslave people are not shoehorned in by clever interpreters; they're there in the teachings and people simply use them. When you become a clever interpreter and use context to excuse every instance of the message to never fight back, never demand repayment of debt, let people enslave you, let people exploit you, you think you're doing a good thing, but by using evil methods for a good purpose, you're legitimizing those methods.

But it doesn't say that. The "never fight back, never demand repayment of debt, let people enslave you, let people exploit you" isn't Jesus. That's you. And the "you think you're doing a good thing, but by using evil methods for a good purpose, you're legitimizing those methods" again, isn't me, it's you. You're doing that. You're ignoring the context of Jesus' words and making your own in order to object to what? Jesus and his word or your world as an atheist in a quasi-theocracy today? The words only mean what they say and say what they mean, in context.

Even as an atheist I'm not interested in debating the Bible as not divine because in that case, nobody has to listen to it and it doesn't matter what it says.

But that isn't, in any way that I can see, true. The constitution isn't divine. Laws aren't divine. Morals aren't usually divine.

I would much rather argue that every word is true and God is most probably evil.

Two things come to mind. Evil is a subjective term, and words have different meanings, applications, and they change. Ask everyone if Jesus was allegedly, according to the Bible, supposed to have died on a cross. That's what most Bible say, but it isn't true, exactly. To be crucified means to be fastened to something. In Greek mythology, Prometheus was crucified on a rock or the earth. The ground. In Jesus day the cross as we know it wasn't used by the Romans. Later it took on various shapes, but they crucified thousands at a time, in battle. Why would they use two pieces of timber instead of just one, especially in a terrain that wasn't plentiful in lumber? Two of the words used to translate into cross (Latin crux, Greek stauros) can mean various shapes, including a single upright pole; one word which was also used (xylon) meant only one piece. A simple upright stake, a pole. Which is what the Jews and Romans in Jesus' time used. Jesus died on a stake, not a cross. But they translate it cross because of Constantine the Great's influence 400 years after Christ. Hell is another word. In the time of King James and other early translators the word hell simply meant covered; concealed. The common grave. It only later took on the pagan meaning currently taught in Christendom.

This is the real dilemma. If God is good then he cares about everyone and everyone ought to be defended, so if the Bible says something else then maybe it's wrong.

But again, that's subjective. The meaning of the Bible, in a basic sense from our perspective, is that man without God will only destroy themselves, so God has to prevent that by destroying all that he thinks is bad. It isn't our call. Maybe the Bible is wrong? Well, that's what all the suffering is about. You can't logically reject God and then blame him on the suffering we cause. That's what the tree of the knowledge of what is good and what is bad represented.

If God doesn't exist then likewise, it is right to defend people who are wronged and that includes yourself. But if God exists and likes it when good people who love him get hurt, and secretly loves abusers more, so he tells us never to raise a hand against them, then what do we do?

Rethink our interpretation. So, Paul, who was a Jew who converted to Christianity slapped a man thinking he was not wrong in doing so. And that would have been correct except for that the man was a government official. When Paul discovered this, he apologized because had he known the man was who he was he would have been wrong in slapping him. This is why context is so important. Atheists always take a literal interpretation out of context. Little clips. The Bible is harmonious throughout. So, using Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek as you argue it, isn't accurate.

As someone who is very straight, this scares me a little, because as a very smart person I have the ability to see all sides at once. I am constantly putting myself in the shoes of the other person. And if someone told me, being straight is an abomination, I couldn't just switch myself off. I could probably be celibate but in no universe could I pound butts. I don't want to. It's disgusting to me. So what really disgusts me, if I universalize, is the idea that God wants one thing or the other.

Well, I'm celibate but [ahem] pounding butts, as you say, isn't exclusively a homosexual practice. Various sexual proclivities were disgusting to God because he created sex to be pleasurable, but for a specific purpose for a variety of reasons. I didn't change my sexual preference, I only abstained from further practice.

I don't know why homosexual males have this tendency toward promiscuity and drugs, but they do. Homosexual females do not. If it's what I think it is, and the female is just naturally more reserved, and acts as a reserving influence on the male, it's going to take more effort for a male-male relationship to be wholesome but that doesn't mean it can't happen. And I can't believe that being gay is wrong, because then I have to believe being straight is wrong. I can't just change and be gay, if that happened to be the right thing. Why should you try to change and be straight? If I'm not attracted to men, I'm not. If you're not attracted to women, you're not.

You have to ask where that tolerance came from, though. We tend to think of the growing tolerance for sexual deviation, which is limited, to be progressive, but the people in Bible times were a pretty randy bunch. They had catamites, and pedophiliacs, homosexuality, bestiality and other deviations a great deal more commonly accepted today in the nations all around them, and where they came from, and even with themselves. But there are cultural factors to consider as well. They didn't think of love and marriage and morality like we did. Both of our sexual mores were formed from cultural variations. For example, it was common in Jesus' time for much older men to marry much younger girls. Joseph was probably about mid-thirties and Mary was a young maid, probably about 14 or 15. There are two pretty obvious reasons for that. They didn't treat their children like adorable little stupid people, naive and innocent, and they didn't depend on higher education. A young man established himself as an apprentice and then later was able to support a family.

[alexxcJRO]

Data admitted God did create evil purposefully.

Evil (Hebrew ra, also translated calamity) was God's response to the sin. Not the sin itself.

Q: So when a human "sins"(steals, rapes, murders) he/she/them does not commit evil?

Q: When a psychopath(Luis Garavito comes to mind) tortures, rapes and then kills a child is not committing an evil?

Q: Really?

Q: What is sin?

Q: What is a sin?

Q: What is God?

Q: What is a god?

The believer will do anything to obfuscate. Avoiding like the plague the questions and my arguments.
So funny how you completely ignored the clear definitions.
You know you are done yourself.
The readers will notice this too.

[otseng]

I don't trust you and I don't like you. I don't think you're capable of providing your own argument, so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

They're idiots; willfully ignorant.

Moderator Warning



Please be respectful of others.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #176]

That wasn't addressed to me so it isn't for me to respond, but I gotta say, it was well written and argued.

Nothing more? Well, what is there to say? It seems the views of someone who has invented their own doctrine, worldview and language, and they are welcome to it. The only thing I'd propose to comment on otherwise is why the Bible is the one thing in all that, that is taken as valid and true and a guide to Liife, as interpreted by the reader. I don't recall anything about Paul slapping anyone, so anyone who imagines or translates that out of the Epistles or Acts has simply invented their own reality, as well as religion.

[Purple Knight]

The temporal solution to many of mankind's problems is the removal of currency. Take away all forms of monetary incentive and the social and political corruption, most obvious in politics, science and religion, would vanish almost immediately. Science and technology could then thrive without being suppressed or abused by that corruption. We have had the ability to do that, increasingly, since the 1970s, but as with everything else, money gets in the way. Money (from the primitive to the current fractional reserve debt-based economy) has been useful but is now obsolete.

You sound like someone who has seen The Money Masters. Fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting and theft at the same time. It allows banks to essentially, print money. Can I print money? Nope. I'd be arrested. Not only that, but when a bank takes in $10, it can loan out $100, but demand repayment of $120. Except... there isn't $120. There is only the $10 the bank got and the $90 it created. So it makes a game of musical chairs where somebody has got to default - it's logically necessary - allowing the banks to then seize real wealth like houses and cars.

For some reason whenever I meet a really smart Christian who is interested in these things and knows about them, it's always a JW or a Mormon. These salad bar people don't even know their own lore. They think people become angels when they die.

People get used to things and then they become a part of them. They work inside the "machine" as cogs. You can't throw a wrench in the machine they are a part of and expect that to fix things. You can't destroy their world with the promise of something better when they are quite comfortable as unwitting slaves.

Indeed. They're not comfortable, though. They're suffering and the people who sold them the lie that this is fair and right are just more charismatic than we are.

That's an interesting way to put it. Yes. As a believer I have to follow the Bible's advice to respect the authorities and obey their laws unless they negate the law of God. So, I can observe and comment on the hypocrisy and corruption of religion and the world but I don't become a part of it in an idealistic fashion nor do I actively take part in protest or objection. I don't vote or try and influence society in any liturgical, legislative or judiciary way. That isn't the solution to our problems. Only Jehovah God can solve our fundamental problems. The world is temporal. Temporary. We could certainly do better, but ultimately only destroy ourselves. That's what impressed me so much about the Bible when I began my intense study, first as an atheist, then as a believer. If you take away all of the pagan nonsense adopted by the Abrahamic religions, Greek philosophy and mythology, and hold up the real Bible to the history of mankind, it's pretty obvious what's going on and how much the Bible has been misrepresented.

Christianity, in general, most certainly has gotten the Bible wrong, and the God concept, and that has passed on to the skeptics. They are skeptical of the "Christian" nonsensical rather than the actuality. It's like forming a negative opinion of someone based on what someone else said, and that someone got it all wrong.

The ancient Jews don't even believe in a soul. The breath is the life. All this afterlife business was added by Greeks. Heaven is where God is.

Christianity, in general, most certainly has gotten the Bible wrong, and the God concept, and that has passed on to the skeptics. They are skeptical of the "Christian" nonsensical rather than the actuality. It's like forming a negative opinion of someone based on what someone else said, and that someone got it all wrong. If a person says "I'm going to kill him" and that someone dies you can't prosecute that someone based upon what they said in specific context. For example, a son, enraged or even only annoyed, might use the phrase in that context which would be remarkably different than someone whispering the phrase to an illegal arms dealer he just bought a high-powered rifle from. Keeping in mind that a) the Bible is an uninspired and fallible translation of an inspired and infallible text. b) it was given to specific people in a specific time for a specific reason long ago. People take clips of the Bible out of context much like the corporate media take sound bites out of context today. For their own personal agenda. You can have an idealistic preference or objection to something that Jesus said to his followers 2,000 years ago under the circumstances I gave in the explanation or you can try and look at it through the lens of your own cultural and temporal ideology. They didn't think a slap or beating a slave or child with a rod was a physical assault. So, your objection is already, not only biased, but imposing its own context.

But it doesn't say that. The "never fight back, never demand repayment of debt, let people enslave you, let people exploit you" isn't Jesus. That's you. And the "you think you're doing a good thing, but by using evil methods for a good purpose, you're legitimizing those methods" again, isn't me, it's you. You're doing that. You're ignoring the context of Jesus' words and making your own in order to object to what? Jesus and his word or your world as an atheist in a quasi-theocracy today? The words only mean what they say and say what they mean, in context.

Beating a child for what it has done is not assault because it's punishment, not because 2000 years later, gentler people who have had easier lives look back and scream "Well I never!" I can disagree that children ought to be beaten without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not just context. The Bible has a message. Don't fight back. You're a dog let them beat you. Give up your coat and tunic to thieves and litigious thieves, they deserve it more. Context excuses an errant example, not a repeated message. If someone slipped in beat-me-I'm-a-dog pacifism after the fact, fine, I'm not objecting to the original text. But what we have now is what we have and it says what it says, and enough Christians believe it is divine and infallible that that is dangerous.

I don't say that if someone sues you to take your coat, give him also your tunic. I don't say turn the other cheek. I don't say forgive your debtors because God has already forgiven you. Jesus says that. The one described in the Bible anyway.

Even as an atheist I'm not interested in debating the Bible as not divine because in that case, nobody has to listen to it and it doesn't matter what it says.

But that isn't, in any way that I can see, true. The constitution isn't divine. Laws aren't divine. Morals aren't usually divine.

That's why I argue that morality is independent of divinity. God can exist. I don't think it's that likely but I also don't know it's impossible. And if he does, he has nothing to do with morality. He has no special privilege to generate and enforce morality because no one does. Thomas Jefferson doesn't either, but if people want to agree to go by what he helped lay out, and it works, everyone benefits. God ought to be treated the same. If it works and people agree, you can't go against it. If it doesn't, then you always have the right to buck it.

Evil is a subjective term, and words have different meanings, applications, and they change.

Good and evil shouldn't change the way what we think of as being crucified or what counts as a pencil, changes. If evil is about hurting other people, then it doesn't.

But again, that's subjective. The meaning of the Bible, in a basic sense from our perspective, is that man without God will only destroy themselves, so God has to prevent that by destroying all that he thinks is bad. It isn't our call. Maybe the Bible is wrong? Well, that's what all the suffering is about. You can't logically reject God and then blame him on the suffering we cause. That's what the tree of the knowledge of what is good and what is bad represented.

That's a little bit of a self-help paradigm. The method is assumed to be right, so if you fail it's because of your own self. I agree that sometimes Christian communities are very good ones. I don't agree that the idea that you can't fight back is a good idea. Whoever puts that out is a tyrant. If the Bible doesn't really say that, then I don't hate it. If it does then I do.

Rethink our interpretation. So, Paul, who was a Jew who converted to Christianity slapped a man thinking he was not wrong in doing so. And that would have been correct except for that the man was a government official. When Paul discovered this, he apologized because had he known the man was who he was he would have been wrong in slapping him. This is why context is so important. Atheists always take a literal interpretation out of context. Little clips. The Bible is harmonious throughout. So, using Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek as you argue it, isn't accurate.

No one fought back in that scenario. What Jesus seems to be saying is don't fight back. There are messages about being kind to people, even if those people are oxen, but most denunciations seem to be on retaliators and not initiators of violence. I have read the whole thing and my retention is very good, but I don't remember everything, especially Revelations. I admit I don't understand Revelations.

Well, I'm celibate but [ahem] pounding butts, as you say, isn't exclusively a homosexual practice. Various sexual proclivities were disgusting to God because he created sex to be pleasurable, but for a specific purpose for a variety of reasons. I didn't change my sexual preference, I only abstained from further practice.

Well that's sad. I would hate it, if someone told me the sexual orientation I was preprogrammed with, was just wrong. If I were bi, I'd shrug my shoulders and just eat the other half of the pie and still have pie. But I'm not. I especially don't see anything wrong with it, if two males live in a monogamous relationship and use that relationship to have children, either through a surrogate or advanced technology. They fused two mouse ova and made a baby mouse, you know. Other mouselings have two fathers, but they die shortly after birth. The viable ones come from two mothers, but technology continues to advance.

You have to ask where that tolerance came from, though. We tend to think of the growing tolerance for sexual deviation, which is limited, to be progressive, but the people in Bible times were a pretty randy bunch. They had catamites, and pedophiliacs, homosexuality, bestiality and other deviations a great deal more commonly accepted today in the nations all around them, and where they came from, and even with themselves. But there are cultural factors to consider as well. They didn't think of love and marriage and morality like we did. Both of our sexual mores were formed from cultural variations. For example, it was common in Jesus' time for much older men to marry much younger girls. Joseph was probably about mid-thirties and Mary was a young maid, probably about 14 or 15. There are two pretty obvious reasons for that. They didn't treat their children like adorable little stupid people, naive and innocent, and they didn't depend on higher education. A young man established himself as an apprentice and then later was able to support a family.

I don't see anything wrong with age difference and I think the age of consent should probably be lowered to 16. It could be even lower in a culture designed so people don't take advantage of the young, and they have a vested interest in their children. Bestiality is wrong mainly because the animal isn't consenting. This happens to align with current cultural norms but that's not where it comes from. It comes from the reductio ad absurdum that happens when a dog humps your leg and you go to Hell for it.