The lord our god is NOT one lord according to the bible therefore everything god is, is false

You essentially contradict yourself in your first paragraph. You say that, "this is only true when YOUR bible suits YOU and only you and only when you feel like it suits you and like every christian abomination, you chuck the rest that you feel like throwing into the trash ... But then again, no stupid ignorant god would ever rely on text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible so people like you can get it wrong." Here you have claimed two things (both of which I'm starting to guess ultimately come from this video series):1. Christians ignore what is written in the Bible2. Text is bad communication because it means we get it wrongIf Christians are ignoring what is written, how do you know it wasn't communicated accurately? You seem to have got the message perfectly clearly, for instance, that God hates adultery - so how can you claim that this wasn't communicated well? And in fact, we do expel from our congregation anyone who commits adultery. If others who call themselves Christian don't follow the Bible, and their members are allowed to commit adultery with no repercussions, infer from that what you will - but it certainly isn't because God's hatred of adultery isn't clearly communicated, you yourself have demonstrated that it is, because you recognized accurately that it was written there!"this god of yours also gives the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" and yet strangely with a zap zang and zowie, this god of yours kills so there"s another super massive hypocritical contradiction"You may tell a child not to touch the oven, but you as an adult can touch it. That is no contradiction. It recognizes your differing levels of knowledge. God can recognize when it's appropriate to do things that we with our limited understanding should avoid taking into our own hands."Fear him? Why should anybody "fear" a supreme deity that is supposed to be "loving"?"fear4. reverential awe, especially toward God:the fear of God.Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.http://www.dictionary.com...I remember asking my Mum the same question, and finding that out. I was probably about seven at the time. You should really understand that the challenges you're throwing around aren't even hard ones; among those who actually follow the Bible and study it these would be considered more appropriate questions for children than for adults. Sure, among 'Christians' who don't actually follow the Bible - who certainly exist as was acknowledged in the first few paragraphs here - these questions may seem tricky. But you aren't asking anything challenging to an actual student of the Bible. This is like challenging a calculus student by saying maths doesn't really make any sense because there's no answer to what you get if you subtract a bigger number from a smaller one! Yes, a calculus student has considered answers to that, decades ago, and to imply that they've never thought about it just sounds silly. They are not intimidated by your aggressive posturing because you are asking them questions that they learned as children, and their silence in response should not be taken as an indication of being beaten, it's more wondering what's a polite way of answering and how the answer can be explained to someone who doesn't already know it. I'm not saying you can't ask these questions - but don't be insulting about it, it just makes people assume that you're probably not the kind of person who would understand an answer even if it were explained. That, not any failure of text as a communication system, is what is most likely to prevent you from learning more in the future."By that reasoning alone, then you MUST consider your entire bible to be a very long list of adjectives and nothing but."You seem confused. This is what an adjective is:http://www.chompchomp.com...God's name, rather than being an adjective, is a proper noun. It has to be, by virtue of being a name.http://www.chompchomp.com...http://biblehub.com...That's why, regardless of whether 22000 people disagree, I can be so sure that 'lord' isn't an appropriate way to translate that word (while not claiming that 'one' is a mistranslation, as you mutilated my argument), because 'lord' is just a noun, not a proper noun.http://www.dictionary.com..."they will ---never--- put their product on trial again."They won't put it on trial because they aren't against it. If you have some legal complaint against it, then you put it on trial, and they will defend it! The defendant doesn't put themselves on trial!'"Faith is the treason people give when they don"t have evidence." Matt Dillahunty'I assume Matt said 'reason' rather than 'treason', that would at least be intelligible albeit wrong for anyone following the Bible. By definition it would be wrong for someone who follows the Bible, because they would follow the Bible's definition of faith at Hebrews 11:1 as being "evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." When they don't have evidence, they can't have evident demonstration of anything, therefore can't have faith, therefore what Matt claims would be a contradiction.https://www.jw.org..."It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well."No. Are you - or the people in your videos who actually come up with these arguments you repeat - so naive about human nature as to believe that just because a text is written with no ambiguity, that means people will accept what it says with no ambiguity? Do you think that all those courses about Quantum Jumping exist because there's ambiguity about whether quantum physics actually suggests such a thing? Or that Flat-Earthers exist because there's ambiguity about whether the world is round? You can show something as clearly and plainly as you like - as with the no-adultery rule mentioned earlier. If it goes against what people want to believe, they will interpret it differently. There may be no logical way to interpret it differently - but that's no obstacle to humans, because humans aren't logical. Humans can always interpret things differently. There's no way a book can be written, no way a sentence can be said, no way any meaning can be conveyed, with only one way to interpret it - unless you're conveying it to a computer instead of to a human.When people genuinely want to know things, there's a reasonable level of evidence it takes. Say they want to know about the holocaust, reading about it and how it fits into the rest of history is generally sufficient. For holocaust-deniers, you can keep providing more and more evidence - photographs, video footage from the time, people who were alive at the time and witnessed it, take them to visit the museums, and they will continue to deny it as being part of some big conspiracy, and demand more and more evidence.Mr. Dillahunty says God doesn't "care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it." I say I've met plenty of his kind before, and provided them with as much evidence as I could provide for any fact in the realm of science, and they always keep demanding more, exactly like any conspiracy theorist. God provides enough evidence for anyone who is genuinely interested in the facts. But for people who don't want to know, there can never be enough evidence, so quite sensibly he doesn't try to provide enough to satisfy them.While your arguments at this point bear at best a tangential relation to the topic, they are the arguments you make, so I have responded to them - there seemed nothing actually on-topic to which one could respond. If, as implied, you ignore this post, then I shall finish in my final section by trying to enlarge upon my previous arguments that God is indeed one.