Is there a God?

[DSMatticus]

DS... See the smiley face? That's me trying to indicate that what I'm saying was meant to be a humorous response. If you can't handle that, suck my dick (<-also a joke since I'm a non-hermaprodite, non-male human entity).

Yes, I was aware you were trying to be funny about it, but humor and sincerity aren't actually exclusive. At all. I thought it sounded like something you'd say, so I assumed there was some shred of sincerity that inspired it, humorous or not.

Though, if I'd read sabs' quote closer, it'd have been clear the context for your comment was not the conversation about Pascal's Wager. Probably wouldn't have taken it as seriously then, so yeah, my bad.

[budalas]

Um, given that this is my first post on the Den I guess I should introduce myself - I kinda lurk & sometimes post on various gaming forums, but never before felt the need to post on Den.

Disclaimer: I'm a Catholic, so my opinions may be biased.

I think that the conception and worship of the Abrahamic God, in terms of long-term effects to humanity, has to so far be the biggest harm done to humanity. Like, having him not be there is no guarantee of there being a utopia or anything because human beings do awful shit all of the time God or no, but that douchebag and his douchebag worshippers' fingerprints are on so many twisted or cascadingly wretched things that it's hard to imagine how the world wouldn't be improved if the Romans nipped that shit in the bud.

That said, I think that religion in general is a bad thing. But YHWH and YHWH's evil cultists still manage to be King Vermin of Shit Mountain. Which is actually kind of impressive when you're up against Kali and Taoism in an unremitting horror kind of way.

The people that did evil in name of religion didn't really care for christian teachings - they only used it as an excuse to commit attrocities - Crusades. Inquisition. Conquista. Stuff like that. However, base theachings of the Curch, ie. New Testament; don't support that. And that, in my opinion is problem whenever someone is discussing Church theese days - bias.

It is really trendy to blame christianity for all evil that occured in the time period it permeated Western culture; while attributing everything good that happened to individual work. If somebody acts stupidly, then usual response is: "You are retarded". In case of religious person, however: "Your religion made you retarded". If somebody is evil: "You are evil." But, for religious person: "Your religion is evil".

I'm not sure if it would be any better if there wasn't Christianity. There would still be evil people, and there would still be religions and ideologies they could hide behind. After all, 20th century was quite devioid of christian influence. Was it any better? 2 World wars. Nazism. Stalin. Nukes. Terrorism, and excessive anti-terrorism. etc.

And of course, the actual percent chance that Christianity is correct is exactly zero. It's a religion whose moral foundations include the gem "virgin women are like store merchandise; you break it, you buy it." That's wildly incompatible with the whole omnibenevolence part, and I'm a firm believer in the law of noncontradiction.

Thats not really moral code of christianity. It's origin is in hebrew culture - namely, raped/non-virgin girl would, as you conclude, considered "defiled", and couldn't marry easily. And women totally depended on their male relations. Thus idiots who wrote that law thought that it would be fair to ask of rapist to feed and shelter her. Most marriages were arranged back then anyway, but that doesn't excuse them for being idiots. It was male-dominated culture.

It is not, however, one of moral foundations of Christianity. It's Old Testament, and it's totally irrelevant to Jesus's theachings.

Keep in mind that Christian morals often were products of culture in which it grew - Judeaic and Roman; and various medieval nations' traditions later on. So, a lot of 'christian' morals don't have a lot to do with it's religious side.

[Username17]

The people that did evil in name of religion didn't really care for christian teachings - they only used it as an excuse to commit attrocities - Crusades. Inquisition. Conquista. Stuff like that. However, base theachings of the Curch, ie. New Testament; don't support that.

That is an argument called "No True Scotsman", it's very well worn and all its flaws are exhaustively documented. It's not a good argument. Beyond that though, this particular formulation of the argument is weak even by those standards.

The usual claim by the NTS people is that Hitler wasn't a "true" Christian. And that when he said he was and always had been a Catholic, when he was having the pope as an honored guest at his own birthday parties, when he was having all the Jews and Atheists he could catch sent to murder camps and quoting Christian texts and Catholic dogma to support it - that all that was some sort of bizarre ruse, and he was secretly an atheist in his heart the whole time. That's a completely insane viewpoint, and totally unsupported by any historical evidence or facts. But it's very hard to disprove, because it relies on making shit up about the inner workings of a skull that has already been splattered on the wall of a bunker before actual atheists (played in this case by Soviet troops) could capture it.

But you're elevating the stupid to a new level: that of claiming that scripture doesn't support Christian atrocities. And that's a much weaker position. Because unlike the secret inner workings of Hitler's thought patterns, scripture is something we can just fucking look up. It's fucking written down, so when you claim that something doesn't have scriptural backing, you can in fact be disproven. And rather easily at that.

Do you really want to claim that the Bible doesn't say that the followers of Jesus should not bring peace on Earth, but to bring a sword? Do you really want to claim that the Bible doesn't say that the followers of Jesus should burn the scrolls of non-believers? Do you really want to claim that the Bible doesn't say that Jesus wants the Earth kindled in flame? Do you really want to claim that the Bible doesn't tell the followers of Jesus to sell the clothes from their back to arm themselves with swords? Because if you want to pull that shit, we can go quote Mark, Acts, and Luke to show that you are dead fucking wrong.

"Just War Theory" is about as old as a Catholic doctrine can be, and it has been used successfully to justify everything from the Crusades to the annexation of Czechoslovakia. But beyond that, Catholic Christianity recognizes not only "Just War", but also "Bellum Sacrum" (Holy War), which is basically just like the Muslim concept of Jihad, with all the vileness that entails.

Basically, you've embarked upon a voyage of self-deception: making an argument you can't possibly win. You're trying to make the argument that the biblical passages that real groups really used to justify their Christian-inspired atrocities don't exist. But they obviously do exist, because the people at the time found them in the book and wrote them down, and repeated them to each other and told future generations where to go looking for them. And now we have electronically searchable bibles, so we can find the passages that these people used to justify their actions and verify in seconds that they really do say that.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Christians need to finally accept that the bible does condone or even order (mass)murders and other atrocities and postulates inhuman laws and general stupidity. If christians do not condone that they are editing the bible, and therefore do not accept it as the holy word of god anymore.

Once you start editing (even if concealed as "not taking it literally") the bible, when do you stop being a christian? And when should you stop proclaiming the bible as holy?

[RobbyPants]

It is really trendy to blame christianity for all evil that occured in the time period it permeated Western culture; while attributing everything good that happened to individual work. If somebody acts stupidly, then usual response is: "You are retarded". In case of religious person, however: "Your religion made you retarded". If somebody is evil: "You are evil." But, for religious person: "Your religion is evil".

Well, some religious people blame atheists behavior on them being atheist, too. It's an easy way to dismiss an argument without actually looking at it. It can be done for anything else, too ("You're Republican, so you're stupid", "You're young, so you're stupid", etc).

And of course, the actual percent chance that Christianity is correct is exactly zero. It's a religion whose moral foundations include the gem "virgin women are like store merchandise; you break it, you buy it." That's wildly incompatible with the whole omnibenevolence part, and I'm a firm believer in the law of noncontradiction.

Thats not really moral code of christianity. It's origin is in hebrew culture - namely, raped/non-virgin girl would, as you conclude, considered "defiled", and couldn't marry easily. And women totally depended on their male relations. Thus idiots who wrote that law thought that it would be fair to ask of rapist to feed and shelter her. Most marriages were arranged back then anyway, but that doesn't excuse them for being idiots. It was male-dominated culture.

It is not, however, one of moral foundations of Christianity. It's Old Testament, and it's totally irrelevant to Jesus's theachings.

Yes and no. I agree it's not a moral foundation of Christianity and even that Jesus implicitly forbid rape with his "love your neighbor as yourself" rule, but there are still two big problems:

1) The part that DSM mentioned is still in the Bible. A lot of people totally reference the Old Testament when they justify their behavior. Even if it makes them wrong or not at "true" Christian (just a no-true-Scotsman), it's still in there and causes a lot of... confusion, to say the least.

2) Even if that gem was part of Jewish culture and not handed down explicitly by YHWH, you still have the issue that an omni-benevolent god didn't think to mention rape for four thousand years or more. He just took a live and let live attitude with it, which is terrible. He couldn't even be troubled to include it in the Ten Commandments (which is weird, because there are really only nine distinct ones, anyway, so it's not even like there "wasn't room" or something). He seriously ranked stuff like don't use my name like a swear word because it hurts my feelings and don't work on the Sabbath because I said so above don't rape people because it traumatizes them for life.

So, even if it's not a "moral foundation" of Christianity, it still really calls omni-benevolence into question.

(It's weird. I was just talking to my wife about this on Friday.)

Keep in mind that Christian morals often were products of culture in which it grew - Judeaic and Roman; and various medieval nations' traditions later on. So, a lot of 'christian' morals don't have a lot to do with it's religious side.

This much I can agree with. I think religion shapes culture, but culture really shapes religion. That's why moderate Muslims in America behave a lot differently than a lot of Muslims in the Middle East. It's why Christians here act differently than Christians in the LRA.

[budalas]

Basically, you've embarked upon a voyage of self-deception: making an argument you can't possibly win. You're trying to make the argument that the biblical passages that real groups really used to justify their Christian-inspired atrocities don't exist. But they obviously do exist, because the people at the time found them in the book and wrote them down, and repeated them to each other and told future generations where to go looking for them. And now we have electronically searchable bibles, so we can find the passages that these people used to justify their actions and verify in seconds that they really do say that.

Yes, you can quote whatever you want from the Bible. You can make it support whatever stance you want to support it. You can make it sound whatever the hell you want it to sound.

But, New Testament as a whole doesn't support it. People quote when they want to use Bible as an instrument of their cause. They select parts they want, and ignore parts they don't care about.

As for Christian-inspired atrocities, well, all I can say is that I don't believe they were in entirety inspired by christianity, because New Testament, as a whole, is against any form of violence.

To comit atrocities in name of christianity means to stomp all over the point of New Testament, and then to piss on it.

[Username17]

Yes, you can quote whatever you want from the Bible. You can make it support whatever stance you want to support it. You can make it sound whatever the hell you want it to sound.

But, New Testament as a whole doesn't support it. People quote when they want to use Bible as an instrument of their cause. They select parts they want, and ignore parts they don't care about.

What?

Seriously, you just "No True Scotsmaned" the direct word of your god. What the fuck?

Your claim is that there's some sort of secret message in the whole bible, and that all the parts about burning books and taking up weapons against your parents if they fail to heed the word of your god somehow don't count because the deeper secret message you can decode from the whole text supercedes all that? That's insane. That's like "A Beautiful Mind" style insanity, in that you are actually ignoring plain text statements in order to data mine secret messages that obviously only you can see. I don't mean "that's insane" like it's overly wacky or like it's something I don't agree with, I mean that's insane like you're actually hallucinating secret messages hidden in long texts. You should get help before you hurt yourself or someone else.

I'm not even joking.

-Username17

[Whatever]

2) Even if that gem was part of Jewish culture and not handed down explicitly by YHWH, you still have the issue that an omni-benevolent god didn't think to mention rape for four thousand years or more. He just took a live and let live attitude with it, which is terrible. He couldn't even be troubled to include it in the Ten Commandments (which is weird, because there are really only nine distinct ones, anyway, so it's not even like there "wasn't room" or something). He seriously ranked stuff like don't use my name like a swear word because it hurts my feelings and don't work on the Sabbath because I said so above don't rape people because it traumatizes them for life.

So, even if it's not a "moral foundation" of Christianity, it still really calls omni-benevolence into question.

(It's weird. I was just talking to my wife about this on Friday.)

It's surprising to us that those ten commandments say nothing about slavery or rape, but it makes a lot more sense when you realize just how despicable people were back then. Culture was patriarchal to an extent that we really cannot wrap our minds around anymore. Men were real people, women and slaves were not. Women were important because they could give birth to sons, but that was about it. When you went out to slaughter the Midianites, you killed the men, but captured the unmarried women and the cattle, because those were things you could own.

Rape of an unmarried woman was a property crime against the father. You paid him for the damages, and married the woman because she might give birth to your son. At no point would anyone be concerned about her "feelings" because she's not a real person. It sounds horrific, because it was.

Rape of a married woman was a heinous crime, because it was super important to keep track of whose sons were whose. Having your sons secretly be some other dude's sons because he slept with your wife was almost as bad as murder. That's why adultery makes the top 10, and rape does not.

Remember, the tenth commandment is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor his wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." That's a list of things your neighbor owns, in order of importance. House first, then wife, then slaves, then cattle, and so on down the line.

[angelfromanotherpin]

But, New Testament as a whole doesn't support it. People quote when they want to use Bible as an instrument of their cause. They select parts they want, and ignore parts they don't care about.

The New Testament as a whole doesn't support being a Christian anymore. The Kingdom of Heaven is explicitly prophesied as coming within the lifetimes of the people who were on earth for the crucifixion. The central prophecy of the religion failed and it failed a long, long time ago.

[RobbyPants]

It's surprising to us that those ten commandments say nothing about slavery or rape, but it makes a lot more sense when you realize just how despicable people were back then. Culture was patriarchal to an extent that we really cannot wrap our minds around anymore. Men were real people, women and slaves were not. Women were important because they could give birth to sons, but that was about it. When you went out to slaughter the Midianites, you killed the men, but captured the unmarried women and the cattle, because those were things you could own.

Rape of an unmarried woman was a property crime against the father. You paid him for the damages, and married the woman because she might give birth to your son. At no point would anyone be concerned about her "feelings" because she's not a real person. It sounds horrific, because it was.

Yes, it was a big step up for the people of the culture. It's not surprising to me that those ten commandments don't have any mention of rape because they are part of a mythology created by a bunch of asshole desert-dwellers who hated women. What is surprising is that people can think they were created by an omni-benevolent god and that this is okay.

Rape of a married woman was a heinous crime, because it was super important to keep track of whose sons were whose. Having your sons secretly be some other dude's sons because he slept with your wife was almost as bad as murder. That's why adultery makes the top 10, and rape does not.

Remember, the tenth commandment is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor his wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." That's a list of things your neighbor owns, in order of importance. House first, then wife, then slaves, then cattle, and so on down the line.

Well, we're still only left with nine distinct commandments*, so they could have crammed in "srsly guys, don't rape people" in there as the 10th, no harm, no foul. And even if not, is the number ten really so speshul that they couldn't have crammed in an 11th saying "srsly guys, don't rape people"?

Well, of course not, because this all makes a lot more sense if you view it as part of an ever-evolving bit of Hebrew mythology rather than the will of Almighty God.



* The 10 commandments are listed twice, and in each place, one is expanded into two and two are collapsed into one. So, we're really left with only 9 actual commandments. In one listing, "don't have other gods before me" is split into "don't have other gods before me" and "don't have idols". In the other, the "don't covet shit" is split into two distinct lists of what not to covet.

[budalas]

What?

Seriously, you just "No True Scotsmaned" the direct word of your god. What the fuck?

Your claim is that there's some sort of secret message in the whole bible, and that all the parts about burning books and taking up weapons against your parents if they fail to heed the word of your god somehow don't count because the deeper secret message you can decode from the whole text supercedes all that? That's insane. That's like "A Beautiful Mind" style insanity, in that you are actually ignoring plain text statements in order to data mine secret messages that obviously only you can see. I don't mean "that's insane" like it's overly wacky or like it's something I don't agree with, I mean that's insane like you're actually hallucinating secret messages hidden in long texts. You should get help before you hurt yourself or someone else.

I'm not even joking.

-Username17

Please, don't twist my words. Your arguments are downright silly.

First, I don't believe Bible is literal word of God. Also, the document of Pontifical Biblical Commission "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (presented in 1993) doesn't recommend it. It is collection of divinely inspired texts, that have huge relevance, yes, but they aren't literaly word of God.

Second, I refer to quoting out of context. When one paragraph says "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew, 7:12); it is pretty clear that you cannot interpret the part about bringing sword instead of peace to the world as "go kill stuff!". It would be much more sensible to interpret it as "there will be division between my followers and other people" - and after he died, just that happened. He also wouldn't need any precognitive superpowers to predict it since it was pretty obvious.

And third, tone it down a bit. You come across as pretty... agitated. Zealous.

[budalas]

But, New Testament as a whole doesn't support it. People quote when they want to use Bible as an instrument of their cause. They select parts they want, and ignore parts they don't care about.

The New Testament as a whole doesn't support being a Christian anymore. The Kingdom of Heaven is explicitly prophesied as coming within the lifetimes of the people who were on earth for the crucifixion. The central prophecy of the religion failed and it failed a long, long time ago.

Well, one common interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount holds that Kingdom of Heaven already started during life time of Jesus. Namely, it's a new system of relations among people, one characterised by nonviolence and kindness towards other people. In that case, it probably stopped when being a christian became benefical, of shortly thereafter.

Though, you are right - christianity is cultural thing today, pretty devoid of original meaning.

[RobbyPants]

First, I don't believe Bible is literal word of God. Also, the document of Pontifical Biblical Commission "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (presented in 1993) doesn't recommend it. It is collection of divinely inspired texts, that have huge relevance, yes, but they aren't literaly word of God.

How do you decide what the underlying narrative is?

As near as I can tell, the justification for doing so is circular:

• You start with a bunch of statements, some you like, and some you don't.
• You take the ones you like and come up with a "true narrative".
• You use that true narrative to justify excluding the statements you don't like.

My wife likes to take the approach of figuring out which parts are "culturally relevant", which are metaphors, and which are different meanings of how we use words today. The problem is, every time I see someone apply that approach, they come up with a different narrative. You get anything from The God of Peace to godhatesfags.com, and everything in between.

[Taishan]

After Frank's first reply to Budalas, I was going to try and rework Budalas' argument into a more coherent one. But now, I think I'll just get the popcorn out and watch.

[Username17]

After Frank's first reply to Budalas, I was going to try and rework Budalas' argument into a more coherent one. But now, I think I'll just get the popcorn out and watch.

The problem with the Budalas argument is that if you make it more coherent it just comes off as condescending and insulting. Also: no less wrong, just easier to parse.

Fundamentally, he's claiming that he has a holistic understanding of the entire bible such that he can cherry pick the quotes he likes, but everyone else over the last two thousand years who cherry picked the quotes they liked weren't "real" Christians. Because obviously if they were reading the book "right" they would have come to the same conclusions as he did about which passages were literal, which passages were metaphor, which passages were divine, and which passages were in error. And the simple fact that there have been literally thousands of differing opinions on what the book "really means" and who you're supposed to stab right in the fucking face over it does not cause him to question his position at all.

Fucking fuck, just the fact that he is saying that he is a Catholic and that he rejects the idea of Sacred War even though that interpretation was officially endorsed by a fucking Pope who is a fucking Catholic saint means that he can't even keep his own bullshit straight. Let alone magically get all the murky Greek texts to jibe. If you're a Catholic and you reject Papal Bulls out of hand, you're not a real Catholic. You may go to Catholic church and do the mumbo jumbo with magic crackers or whatever, but your authority to say what Catholicism "really means" is out the fucking window the moment the fucking Pope is not on the same side of the issue in question as you.

The level of hubris here is so immense that it defies ready analysis. He is literally claiming to be able to better know Catholic Dogma than the actual Pope of the actual religion.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

The argument that the bible is "semi-divinely inspired, semi-cultural ramblings of the people who wrote it" doesn't save it. There are three possibilities:

1) The moral mandates in the bible are inaccurate to some degree, and god punishes people for deciphering which is which incorrectly with hell. This is not omnibenevolent; "the only teachings you left us on earth told me to beat homosexuals to death with rocks, and now you're sending me to hell for it?"

2) The moral mandates in the bible are inaccurate to some degree, and god does not punish people for following the inaccurate moral mandates. Which is still not omnibenevolent, because that means you can go around beating homosexuals to death with rocks and still get into heaven. God is totally okay with that, as long as you're doing it for him. He won't correct you or save the homosexual from your misguided violence, and he'll be touched by your effort, mistaken or otherwise.

3) The moral mandates in the bible are accurate, and you should be attending the nearest gay pride rally with a pile of murdering rocks. This is not omnibenevolent.

Of the list "shit you have to cut out of the bible to get it to make sense," omnibenevolence is number one. God has to be a dick to someone some of the time or there is absolutely no reconcilation of the bible and modern thought on morality.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why does God have to be omnibenevolent or even good at all? Why can't God just be a massive dick?

[Maj]

Is omnibenevolence in the Bible?

[Taishan]

The problem with the Budalas argument is that if you make it more coherent it just comes off as condescending and insulting. Also: no less wrong, just easier to parse.

I don't disagree with you at all. I try to be generous and assume that bad arguments MIGHT have good intentions, and it seemed that Budalas was making an argument with Lago's point of 'conception and worship of the Abrahamic God...(is) the biggest harm done to humanity'. I was hoping that Budalas was trying to make the argument that there have been a lot of shitheads throughout history, and while many have been Christian, its not the most helpful or even rational thing to say that the whole of Judeo-Christian history has been the biggest mistake ever. But instead, Budalas went full retard. So have at him

[DSMatticus]

Is omnibenevolence in the Bible?

It's a tenet of Christianity that got truly popular probably in the past century or two, so... no. Like most of modern Christianity, it has nothing to do with the bible. That doesn't stop the institutions of Christianity preaching it, just like things being in the bible doesn't mean the institutions of Christianity will preach it.

Modern Christianity is a giant soup of biblical ideas, other religions, political interests, and the philosophical thought of the past two thousand years. When the soup starts to become unpalatable for the typical follower, they strain something out (maybe women aren't objects) or add something in (Pagan holidays Christmas for everyone!).

Why does God have to be omnibenevolent or even good at all? Why can't God just be a massive dick?

See above. He was originally as massive dick; a destructive force to be appeased so bad shit didn't happen to you.

The adoption of god as a omnibenevolent benefactor sort of happens in the new testament, but it's mostly an after-the-fact extension to account for the fact that 'petulant needy child' makes an unimpressive deific figure. But biblically, that is pretty much exactly what God/YHWH is.

tl;dr omnibenevolence is something that's been added to keep Christianity popular. Nobody in the modern world would worship a massive dick (<insert obligatory your mom joke>).

[Taishan]

Why does God have to be omnibenevolent or even good at all? Why can't God just be a massive dick?

In the OT, he is a massive dick. He's just a bigger dick to non-Israelites and sometimes, helps them out with genocides. On occasion, he may help you find a goat. But don't get to used to that.

Honestly, I don't get people who believe the bible is literal truth, given the crazy INHERENT contradictions and the apparent contradictions with their own view of Christianity. For example, I have a feeling that Budalas probably thinks that God's command to exterminate the Amalekites is a bit over the top in these enlightened days and NOT a command that the Christian God would give.

[Maj]

It's a tenet of Christianity that got truly popular probably in the past century or two, so... no.

Then why is the Problem of Evil a problem?

[DSMatticus]

Then why is the Problem of Evil a problem?

The problem of evil predates Christianity, and wasn't actually posed in specific reference to the bible. The problem of evil, in its original form, is simply the statement that omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and the existence of evil are logically contradictory.

Abandoning any of the four above removes the contradiction. Modern Christianity explicitly subscribes to all four, however, so it subject to the contradiction. If you wanted to go truly biblical (no one does), then really... you can abandon all of the omni's entirely; the biblical god is demonstrably not omnibenevolent, not omnipotent, and not omniscient.

But yes, if you aren't a Christian (as modern concepts define it) then you don't suffer from the paradoxes that Christianity specifically suffers from. But you also shouldn't call yourself a Christian. And yes, what the term Christian means has evolved over the past 2000 years. A lot.

[Maj]

But yes, if you aren't a Christian (as modern concepts define it) then you don't suffer from the paradoxes that Christianity specifically suffers from. But you also shouldn't call yourself a Christian. And yes, what the term Christian means has evolved over the past 2000 years. A lot.

I think this is BS, actually. Given that there are thousands upon thousands of different denominations of Christian, it's impossible to define the religion as much more than "follows Christ."

And then you run into problems of language. People in my church use words like omniscient and omnipresent to describe a deity who has a human-like body (not omnipresent) and passes out a Jiminy Cricket to help keep track of everyone and report back to him on how they're doing (not omniscient). Clearly, there are a couple of contradictions there, but the words are used in the sense of "knows way more than humans do," not a literal "God knows everything about everything."

There's not a linguistic middle ground. There's no word for perspicuity and knowledge beyond the capability of human-kind but still limited in some way that isn't a deific attribute of perfection. And when humans accomplish something that's [perceived as being] impossible for 99% of the rest of us, we describe it in god-like terms because that's a limitation of our language.

[fbmf]

And third, tone it down a bit. You come across as pretty... agitated. Zealous.

Do you know where you're posting? I thought you said you'd lurked for a while.

I own the place, and I get cussed at on a regular basis. Unless I'm dispensing justice in a specifically marked post, I just accept that its going to happen.

Welcome to the Den.

Game On,
fbmf