Catholics are making it up.

It just goes to show that both you and the RCC can come to stupid conclusions if you start with stupid premises.

Forbidding meat was wrong at one time and eating meat was wrong at one time (according to you). The whole meat issue is ambiguous, which makes my point that "the Bible" is not monolithic.

Why? Where's the logic in that? The dividing line for good/evil was at the supposed "Fall", not at the Flood. Which you made up. The supposed deterioration doesn't work as a reason for decreased longevity. Methuselah lived much longer than Adam. Which you made up. As it would in the pre-Flood "Fallen" world. Which doesn't make a lick of sense.

Not only is it not "obvious", it's contrary to the evidence. That's both factually false and unscriptural. That's also completely made up.

The evidence shows that there has been no "deterioration" in genomes, etc. sice the Flood (which didn't happen, according to the evidence). But it is not scriptural in that scripture says no such thing. It may or may not be a reasonable inference but it is not scriptural. No, I just have to point out that scripture doesn't say it - you're making it up. It certainly is made up. That's what made up means. Unfortunately you have an unrealistically low opinion of fiction; you dismiss anything made up as bad, so you can't admit that any of your beliefs are made up.

Is that true?

Probably. So is it really true that in bad economic times people turn to gods?

And I'm asking if that is true. I think in hard times some believers realize that God ain't gonna do it for them. A dose of reality often cures a bad case of fantasy.

Complete would be more than just good. You are limiting your made-up god. That's a convenient definition, isn't it? Define it specifically so that it can never be tested. Why not use an honest definition instead?

That's contradicted by your own quote, Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." That doesn't include anything that God is not. Where does this dragon fit outside of alpha and omega? That's a cute play on words but does it actually mean anything? Thanks. I will. The consequences of overpopulation, etc. have nothing to do with that utterly stupid interpretation of the Revelation.

Why would we do that? Wars don't gain resources any more. We're not a bunch of feudal fiefdoms exchanging farmland any more. Wars use up resources, waste resources. The evidence shows that everything that has ever been done for humanity has been done by humanity. Note that the "last days" that Peter spoke of have been coming for more than two thousand years. So yes, I do scoff at people who take the idea of the "last days" seriously. Peter might as well have prophesied that, "People will laugh at knock-knock jokes."

And as I said, that contradicts your quote. The Revelation says that God is EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING that He is not. That's you diminishing God.There is no separate Satan. Satan is an agent of God. Satan is a part of God. If that was true, it would be the Revelation contradicting itself. Your own quote says that nothing can be "not God". Jesus Himself said who would be on the guest list - those who do things for others instead of depending on God to do it for them. If there is anything to that demented "Beast" story, the ones who "follow the Beast" are the ones who DO depend on God instead of doing it themselves. The paradigm you suggest isn't even self-consistent. Your reading of the Revelation contradicts itself and it contradicts Jesus.

Yes it does. There are NO letters in the alphabet except those between Alpha and Omega. That is a very clear analogy. There is nothing before the Beginning and nothing after the End. that is a very clear analogy.What on earth do you think those analogies mean if they are not all-inclusive? It says what it says. If it means pantheism, that's your problem, not mine.

That might work if the author hadn't also mentioned Alpha and Omega. The complete alphabet has nothing to do with time. The context implies a more general completeness. There's no difference in the completeness. The source of the voice is not in question here. The nature of the source is in question. Is it a complete God (Alpha and Omega) or a puny half-god like you portray? Alpha and Omega includes the whole alphabet. All of it. Why not? That's far from clear. Something akin to magic mushrooms seems pretty likely. How does it "make more sense". Show us the sense. That's only your stubborn propensity to swallow everything the apologists say without actually reading the Bible and thinking it through for yourself. That propensity weakens your qualification to declare what "makes more sense". I'm not trying to prove anything (about a God who doesn't exist). I'm just pointing out what the Bible says. That's entirely possible. Do you think Jim Hawkins was a real person? Or that the story he told was true? That doesn't work if Jesus is God. Yes and there must have been "some reason" for creating the Mormon Church, the Church of Scientology, the Raelian Church.... "Some reason" for doing it is does not mean that the thinking behind the church has any merit. A story about a death, burial and resurrection would suffice. Just like a story about angels writing on golden tablets would suffice. This has been pointed out to you many times before. The story does not have to be true.

I didn't say that following God is evil. I said that the way to follow God is not by bleating, "Lord! Lord!" and expecting Him to do everything for you. It's by doing unto the least of these. Of course there is. Don't be silly. I have to do everything for myself. Stop it. You're just trying to rationalize your own silly beliefs.