Matthew 4:7 You are not to put...God to the test"

Okay so we shouldn't do that, but that means we could if we wanted right?

I'm not even aware of the Old Testament saying word one about homosexuality in women. 

I never understood the logic behind this. Surely if one tested God and found the result successful, then one would be more likely to believe in, and worship, the deity.

   And it's not likely you ever will, but I will try to explain it anyway, patient sport that I am.

   The problems with testing "god's" will is that you cannot be certain what it is in the particular circumstances, so it is really testing whether "god's" will aligns with your own, which is nothing to boast.

   Like no one ever heard of context before.

Of course you shouldn't put God to the test, as it just embarrasses everyone in the room when he consistently fails.

   Communication can fail for a variety of reasons.  A major reason it fails lately is that people are not trying to communicate.  They are trying to dominate.  They do not understand much themselves because they merely copy word for word things from their herd.  They obviously cannot help anyone else understand what they do not.  So communication fails.  A stunning example before the pandemic was whether Trump offered a "quid pro quo" to Ukraine and why Biden's rather obvious quid pro quo was not delivered instead by any of the other people so certain there was no implication regarding Hunter Biden.  The political process in the United States had become a farce devoid of communication skills.  I digress somewhat.

   Whether or not you can communicate might depend on whether or not you actually try.  I suspect your ability, or perhaps inclination, to listen is very much the problem.  The "traditional view" of God of which you speak is just your own opinion.  It is characteristic of pedestrian thinking as many things in a wide and common parlance must be.  It ignores deeper meaning that can be inaccessible to people stuck at a rudimentary level of reading, such as yourself.  The "god" then is not ridiculous because people actually believe in a ridiculous god.  It is ridiculous because you are not capable of reading what it actually is.  Comparing whether Santa likes Donner or Blitzen better to religion is your own unqualified concept intruding into the conversation because you will not listen to what people actually mean.

   I have offered the lesson, and you have apparently still not availed yourself of it, of trying to describe the color green to a blind person.  It is not an easy thing to do anyway and nearly impossible without some listening.

Yes, quite a non-sequitur. But go on.



One notes that it is always those others, the necessarily stupid folk disagreeing with so much of which you say, which exercises you so much, who inevitably have 'the problem' - never someone who, say, argues with dictionaries and thinks he wins, or doesn't accept the work of Darwin or The Theory of Relativity.



We've been through this before and I have pointed out to you before how full the Bible is with talk of a god which holds strong opinions, and with attributed human characteristics such as love, anger and jealousy - something evident, even to those without advanced reading skills.



I can only report what the Bible says. It does not often see god as just a code of ethics, as something entirely abstract, nor as a Spinozian 'essence of nature' - things which, in turn, you have claimed the deity is. 



On the contrary, if one attributes an active and intervening 'will' to a code of ethics say, then the effort is just as meaningless. A point which you do not address.


To which the reply is the same: that one can be sure that colour exists in so far that it can be independently verified, so that it is a false equivalence; but that ultimately one cannot be sure that a blind person would know what it is for sure, or not, when explained since there is no way of validating anything. I hope that helps. But it didn't last time.