What is "FAITH"

[Consilius]

Societal values change, morals do not. If they did, you could not condemn the Bible as immoral because the people in the Bible were moral simply because they believed they were.

"Societal values change": correct. "Morals do not": incorrect. Societal values determine their moral structure. This has always been the case. Because the Bible doesn't match up with our moral code now, we can call it immoral. What's more, this is a completely objective rationalization.

Witnesses to crimes can't be thrown out of courtrooms because they are the only sources of evidence for the crime. If they mostly agree with each other, they stay.

I'm glad to see you fancy yourself a judge and that you ONLY rely on Witness Testimony for evidence. Good thing they aren't deciding the fate of the universe in the courtroom, or we'd all be screwed.

Jesus didn't write things down because his purpose on earth was action. He didn't publicly claim himself God, but let his actions speak for him. He allowed his life to be interpreted by those around him. He also preached to poor, illiterate men and women.

Glad to see that you gleaned his purpose from reading an unreliable source. It's interesting to note that you say that he didn't publicly claim himself as a God. Whether he did or didn't is not the screwy part here: it's that he was elevated to this status by the words of men. The same thing happened to Kim Il-Sung in North Korea. Should we believe he's a god just because the people there thought he was? Were the Pharoahs gods?

When your view is limited by the scope of the bible, it's easy to forget about all the other instances in the world where the exact things happen. Unfortunately, Jesus isn't here to prove that he's a god, and the people who wrote about him being one are also dead. If Jesus is a god who is still living today, there would be more proof of that. I mean, we at least have video footage of Kim Il-Sung, so we know he was at least alive at some point.

You also need to work on your definition of propaganda. The word has gotten a bad rap. Propaganda is propagating an idea to promote it among individuals or groups of people. Whether the propaganda is bad or good is all in the eye of the beholder. Saying the Gospels aren't propaganda is an argument from ignorance, because, by the definition, they are just that; you simply see it as good propaganda.

---

Because God is love. Love exists for something TO love. God gave his existence purpose by making other beings exist.

How is God love when love is simply a concept? God, then, is also just a concept.

When you say something like "God is love" you are creating more questions about god than you are actually answering.

If the Bible was immoral, you would be wrong in calling it so since you believe there is no objective standard for morality. You'd be discriminating against the ancient Jews because they believed what they did is moral, and since BELIEVING something is moral is all it takes for a moral to exist, they apparently placed themselves within their own moral standards.
Luckily, this is not true. This argument shouldn't be used to defend the Bible. The Torah says not to kill and steal, just like the laws do today.
Jesus proved he was God and the Messiah through his life. His actions were more powerful than his words. He showed the world that he was God and had them tell others about it. Christ made himself God to others. Others did not make Christ God.
Love can exist as a concept, but it is also a force because it has physical effects on the world.

---

We are talking about parthenogenesis in a human, which does not naturally occur and could not artificially occur in the 1st century.

How do you know that it does not occur in humans but is not incredibly rare? The fact that it occurs naturally in other animals suggests that it is possible (no matter how improbable) that parthenogenesis can occur in humans.

It hasn't been proven to have occurred in a human before. Don't you think that a single incident of parthenogenesis in 2000 years is just a little bit TOO rare?

---

Societal values change, morals do not.

Morals do evolve, change. Old Testament morality was an eye for an eye. New Testament morality was turn the other cheek. Modern morality is not quite as archaic as the OT or nearly as zen as the NT. Modern morality is somewhere in between, having evolved through hundreds of years of human evolution.

The rule still remains that every action should be compensated. In the OT, the philosophy was to do it yourself. In the NT, they said that God should be allowed to take care of it. The same rule is being followed in different ways.
If something like "an eye for an eye" constituted a moral standard by itself, then not getting back at someone who did something to you would be contrary to this standard, immoral. That word doesn't quite fit this case. If "turn the other cheek" was a moral standard, revenge would be immoral and Christ would have preached immorality to the Jews and to the God of the Bible, who would have previously implemented a moral standard that he was now removing. God would have been openly shifting the goalposts.
What is immoral is that a wrongdoer never gets punishment by any means.

---

Because God is love.

So I've heard, but that statement remains as vapid as it was the first time.

Question: If god is love, why send bears to maul forty-two of the beings he supposedly loves for showing disrespect?

Love exists for something TO love.

Evidence?

God gave his existence purpose by making other beings exist.

Again, god seems to be trapped by human constraints. Why would the purpose of god's existence be contingent upon the existence of others? Surely an omniscient, omnipotent being would capable of finding such on his own.

Punishment for disobedience is simply invoking discipline, like a schoolteacher. Those who don't take correction do not want to be part of the system, and are expelled from it. The naughty kid is expelled from school, and loses everything that came from the schoolteacher that he refused to obey. You respect someone who you owe money, or else his money will be taken back. If you owe God your life and you refuse to respect him, then you refuse to be with him. Your life is taken from you and you a granted an eternity without him, that being hell.
When you are happy, you want to express it by doing good things to other people. You don't keep it to yourself.
I did not say God's existence was dependent on us. I said that God fulfilled his personal objective by making us to love.