http://www.ateosmexicanos.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88:crimenes-imaginarios&catid=34:articulos&Itemid=61

His/its behaviour falls far short of the behaviour expected of today's compassionate and educated person. The only explanation for the mismatch between reality and the reports is that the reputed characteristics of this god person cannot be all correct. He/it cannot be similtaneously all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving and all-wise without also suffering from some kind of cognitive, development or mental impairment.

If your god person had foresight he/it would realize that the words he/it dictated to the Torah scribes would be variously interpreted and misinterpreted throughout the ages. An intelligent and benevolent god person would have made sure that his earthly son was also omniscient or at least literate. Or he could have provided his peasant son with enough intelligence to chose disciples who were. Providing a clear record of god-teaching wouldn't have taken a miracle. All it needed was a bit of foresight and intelligent thinking. And possibly a lawyer.

Which raises another problem with your story. The Jesus character was supposedly half man and half god. He clearly lacked some of the characteristics which you ascribe to a god person, such as a failure of omniscience which included lack of the ability to write. According to the people who did get around to writing what he said down he lacked complete knowledge of what his divine father person wrote in the Talmud as he gets the quote wrong. The problem is that there is no way to know what parts of this half-god person's message comes from the omniscient god part and what comes from the fallible man part. So even if he or his disciples had written his preaching down word for word there would be no guarantee that it was god-perfect.

In comparison, Mohammed did a better job. He claimed that his revelations were dictated directly by an angel who did not have the problem of being half-human. Then he used his intelligence to find and persuade some literate people to write it all down.

Unfortunately the Koran is also subject to problems of multiple and changing interpretations by every human who reads it.

In the final analysis neither the Yaweh god nor the Allah god (or the composite god) were intelligent enough to avoid the killing and human suffering which resulted from an ambiguous document.

This leaves us with the conclusion (no doubt unpalatable to you) that he/it/they were at least one of the following: stupid, unwise, ignorant, immature, personality disordered, immoral or sadistic. The alternative explanation is that the god person concept is a socially sanctioned but man-made fabrication or delusion I guess you won't like that conclusion any better.

The bottom line is that your line of reasoning makes no sense when carried through. This does not reflect well on what might well be an excellent intellect when you apply it to concepts which exist in the real world.

If you (Mr. Maulis) are going to complain that the Talmud is not holy because it is just the musings of rabbis, then why can't the same complaint be made of the NT? Maybe one could make the argument that the gospels could be the word of god since they supposedly come from Jesus (an argument that hinges on ignorance of the dates of writing and other issues with the sources) but certainly not the rest of it. Paul's letters, for instance, are basically the same as the thoughts in the Talmud, are they not?

Christ coming in the flesh was not the first time God had rebuked his people for hypocrisy, their vicious and merciless judgments, and oppression of the weak and poor. He was continually sending them prophets that said the same thing, whom they slew.

It's like watching a blindfolded man staggering across a rake-strewn yard.

I know I should do something about this, but I can't look away!

Ben, your pseudo-surname has been aptly chosen. The rake that just broke your nose is called "The Problem of Evil" in most circles.

Goyo, the word of God does indeed tell us the wages of sin is death, but we cannot ignore that it also gives us the qualifications for the one who carries out the execution.

Actually, no, that's not true. In the law of Moses, it commands the children of Israel to put offenders to death, not to wait for god to do it.

According to such a doctrine, man is so sinful that God is right in destroying him not only by calamity, but is also justified in casting his soul into everlasting torment. No doubt this is the epitome of violent and immoral religion for OMGF...

And it isn't for you?!?!?!?!

OMGF, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I did not fail to see the loaded question. You just assumed that because the question was loaded, I would have no option but to answer one of your two ways.

Except you did fall into one of the prongs of the question.

The Pharisees supposed that they had Jesus the same way. "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"

You do realize that story was added to the Bible well after the fact, don't you? It's not part of the original writing. Of course, you can act like you answered like Jesus did, but the truth is you didn't. At best, you can claim that you avoided answering the question, thus you would still be faced with actually answering it.

Now if we replace the act of adultery with a homosexual act, isn't that exactly what you are doing here by asking me, "what sayest thou?"

And you answered that god's word doesn't need to be followed when you personally disagree with it, and now you are stonewalling.

My answer also testifies to the fact the God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world but that through him the world might be saved. "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]."

How modest of you. Problem is, you aren't god. god laid down rules that you seem to think are just fine and dandy, that homosexuality is wrong. god also told you what you should do about it and you are turning up your nose at that claiming that god's laws don't need to be followed afterall. So, which is it?

No. It could also just as easily be that the things you keep telling people are sins are, in fact, not sins. I have a hard time--impossible really--connecting any feeling of "sinfulness", to the lives led by the two pairs of lesbian women I know. No, I'm not interested in the chapter and verse of the bible that tells me how wrong I am. I'm with Huck Finn: If believing what I believe and doing what I do is wrong then fine; I'll go to hell.

Before I tell you what I believe, let’s commit some facts.

Is anyone else still waiting for facts?

You said that men shouldn't condemn other men based on the laws in the old testament, since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Let the one without sin cast the first stone, is the gist of what Jesus said right?

So that implies that no human should judge any other human, since we are all guilty. Thus, all the judging should be left to God. And this seems to mean that humans shouldn't have any laws whatsoever, since we are not in a position to make them. Instead, we should leave that to God.

If that's what you mean, aren't you being inconsistent arguing for the correctness of one method of living over another? How do you know that you aren't merely endorsing another human invention, and that you are no better than the pharisees? Why not leave everything to God?