When it comes to discussing "God" with Christians, there's really no point.

 Every time

some Christian, or Muslim, or Mormon, etc ... "reason"(ish), and make pronouncements about "God" as it relates to humanity, ... I lose a bit more hope for humanity. Maybe it's the Jerry Springer Effect. Maybe I listen to so much Christian radio, Christian podcasts, debates, etc... that it's creating a false sense of the entire world being essentially one big trailer park of glorified dysfunction. Adding further layers of bitter irony, various atheist step onto the stage to "set things right" ... and end up accomplishing the opposite of what they set out to do. What good are verified facts, or sound logic, or enlightened ethics, when the otherwise logical (and correct) person presenting those ... can't resist the urge to be antagonistic or hostile in their volume, tone, or choice of words? Even if they can keep a cool and diplomatic disposition, ... What good are any of those things as a bridge of understanding, or as a catalyst for prosocial maturity ... when the religious person only values those within the limited context of their religious narrative? Even if we just frame it as a contest instead, the game is rigged. If an atheist uses a logical fallacy, then the religious person can prove that and then the atheist must concede the point. -And they usually will concede the point, when that happens. But if that happens the other way around, the religious person just plays the "Get Out Of Logic; FREE" card; because "of course us lowly humans shouldn't be able to make sense of a "God". But if a GOD shouldn't make sense to us, then we can't rule out any beliefs AT ALL. In that case, we can't even rule out violent Islamic Jihadists, or religiously-themed child s#x-slavery cults, because human ethics, logic, etc... are seen (by the religious mind) as un-useful for determining what a "God" thinks, feels, says, does, orders, permits, rewards, or punishes. Christians can't afford to be consistent ... about literally anything that deals with the human condition. So they'll say "of course the TRUE GOD would never force a r@pe-victim to become the marital property of her attacker, because God is LOVE and would never do something so horrible to innocent girls". But then when it comes to countless other barbarisms that the OT and NT says was truly (not falsely) done in the name of that deity, ... all of the sudden "well, if my God saw that as good, it's not our place to find fault or even question it". But if an alleged God can do X that is evil per human values, and that's FINE, ... then how can we then turn around and argue that surely that same GOD would never do Y because it offends our human values? Since there isn't a standard (none at all) that Christian-God-claims can be assessed/evaluated by, as a way to SLUTH and DISCERN the legitimacy of their claims, ... there's automatically no point in any challenger even bothering. But then those same Christians DO assess the claims of OTHER religions based on whichever human criteria they find conveniently useful in the moment. Suddenly, OF COURSE a true GOD would never X, nor Y, nor Z. So OF COURSE that "messenger" over there is wrong. Suddenly, magically, there are STANDARDS we can use to reasonably doubt, challenge, or reject other claims . And just as quickly, there once again are NOT any, when we turn back to the Christian to assess, scrutinize, or reject theirs. IN FACT, ... the very MOMENT that a challenger says they've *made up their mind* that Christianity is BS., the Christian will accuse the challenger as adopting a "closed mind" and rejecting even "the pursuit of truth". But the very FACT of being a Christian, for 99.9% of Christians, is automatically and completely the intent of a *final* rejection of all contrary worldviews and values. It's just a big giant pile of contradictions and hypocritical double-standards, issued from the premise of being an *authorized agent* of an *unquestionable moral authority*. Ultimately, it's a fabricated license of entitlement, supported only by the egocentric feelings of an emotionally-underdeveloped (but otherwise intelligent) fellow ape. Every version of an Abrahamic Religion was originally modeled on emulating Narcissistic Personality Disorder. -Although, back then, they didn't have that terminology. So they just called it "godly". And so, it's actually the fundamentalists who are using their book *as intended*. That's why debates with fundamentalist and fundamental-ish Christians always follow the same patterns of personal attitudes and conversational-maneuvers as: a domestic victim or family member trying to reason with a loved-one who has that disorder. So, sure. I could list every example of bad reasoning and bad character displayed, and then write pages of carefully explained problems. But who would read all that? Maybe a few would skim it. But nothing productive would come of it. Yester-Me would bother. Why? Because he was unrealistically idealistic. But today's me? Meh. I'll take the time to rant (rarely) about why there's no point making points. But then that's about it. Anything else I invest would just be out of boredom or loneliness. Because the people who most need the help maturing are always the people least willing to mature. And that's fine. It really is.

I've made peace with it "for the most part". Because it's really always out of my hands. https://fb.watch/dMP90QkRjI/ https://www.youtube.com/c/TheraminTrees/videos