There is at Least One Problem with the Notion of a Catholic (Christian) God

Why eat if I am going to die? Why drink water when I will pass away? Why maintain my existence if someday I will perish? Because until we die, we have to get along. If we don't, if our social order breaks down and everyone acted in this sociopathic manner you suggest that we would, then humanity will be over. The species would be dead. Our ancestors with morality survived, passed on that gene, and most people feel some sense of morality. And I would counter, why be moral at all if, on one's death bed, you can recant and be accepted into heaven anyway?I never said that all of Christianity is immoral. This isn't the debate. The debate is over whether there is one problem with Catholicism/Christianity, so I went to the Bible which I would assume would be a good place to start. I don't know what you are talking about when you speak of my assumptions about disadvantages. Wait, which fallacy says that examples aren't proofs? I gave examples where Christianity/ the bible have said morally incorrect things. I have no idea what you would like me to do instead of give examples? Q1: Well, when compiling a rule book that determines the eternal resting place of someone's soul, a smart being would say, "Maybe we should be direct here." Why do manuals have all these guidelines and tips? I need vague and flexible stories to tell me what to do.Actually, YOU need to prove that there is something more important than scientific knowledge. It's called the burden of proof. But, hey, I'd actually agree with you. If you ask me, human relationships are a lot more important, especially in our day-to-day lives. I don't see why spirituality is essential to our lives, and that is what you need to show.Well, when you compile a book that is supposed to be a rule list for humanity, then directness is really more important. I mean, the Constitution isn't a series of vague, flexible allegories because that'd be a really inefficient document. And what do you mean by the message can be rejected easily, but not the story? Isn't the story only important in that it translates a message? And it's actually very easy to reject the story: there's no evidence for the world wide flood and a mere rejection of god doesn't mean that people are deserving to be murdered. Boom.Q3: Actually, you were the one to strip my comment on their scientific ignorance from its context. I was saying that the scientific inaccuracies were consistent with a culture that didn't know much about the natural world, and not the word inspired by an all knowing God. Q4: So it is good God's message is confusing... so I can go to god's message to find what I should do... But god's message is confusing... so I have to go to god's message to find what I should do about god's confusing message... But (goes on for infinity). To be more clear, I was saying that telling stories to explain rules is counter intuitive, especially if the stories are fictional. Anyone can construct a hypothetical to support themselves.We don't have a hard copy though. We have a document, and in the past copying documents were extremely hard to do. For a long time they had to hand write it, and then the printer press made things only marginally easier. Not to mention that it was written in a language that would die out and have to be translated into languages so obviously there is a large chance that some of the messages wouldn't be copied correctly. In fact, making a book in 600 BC and wanting it to be copied is literally the best way to ensure that your message will be distorted. So there's another problem. Doctrine based on what? I mean, if the doctrine isn't based on the Bible then what is the point of having the Bible?I honestly don't even know what you are talking about with Protestantism. Maybe I'm an idiot. What documents? What gap? I'm not even a Christian, why should I care about this?Nowhere does God say, "We don't need this battle." He doesn't say, "This is where your land will end." He says, "They have iron chariots, which I can't beat." So either God is a liar, or the common Christian claim that he is all powerful is a lie. Boom, another problem. I haven't attacked God though. If anything, I'm doing the exact opposite. If he exists, I would be distancing myself from him. But no, he's distancing himself from me by not showing himself and not giving evidence he exists. I don't want to be with God because I don't think he exists. I don't think Hell exists. How can I choose to go to a place I don't believe in?If God doesn't show himself and gives no reason for me to believe he exists, why should I believe in him? But apparently if I don't believe in him, I will go to hell, and all because he hasn't given any evidence he exists. So God can't do anything or else he isn't all good, but he also isn't limited. So God isn't all good?To be honest, to stop all suffering and pain in the world, I would happily give up my free will to commit these acts. There is no reason he can't stop others from being evil while still letting us choose him or not. In fact, the more knowledge we have of a situation the more informed our decision can be. And Satan knew of God, right? He still rejected him. Obviously humans can reject god while still knowing of god. No, you said pain is okay because god is handing them an IOU.So, the Catholic church is corrupt. Boom, one reason not to trust Catholicism. The people who are going to guide us to heaven are corrupt, and therefore not trustworthy.Please, don't use my disdain for your horrific character stop you from proving he exists. If you don't there's no reason to believe any of the Bible except an empty threat.Exodus 21:2-6 isn't about female sex slavery (because you never specified what you were asking for), it is about another form of slavery. Exodus 21:7-11 is about sex slavery.Oh, so God isn't Hitler, he's just Neville Chamberlain. But it's all fine. The Israelis were better to their human cattle than the other slavers. Except even this hypothetical falls apart when you realize that God doesn't care about free will or the opinions of his subjects (hardens the Pharaoh's heart, repeatedly punished the Israelites for disobedience). And if God is just appealing to us, his subjects, then how can you say that any of his pronouncements are correct. Maybe the climate had changed in the New Testament so now he has to say that divorce is okay. Divorce is actually pretty okay. Can you show divorce shouldn't be allowed ever? What about domestic violence incidents?Why would having slaves keep Israelis on God's path, and why would that invite foreigners? Who would go to slave state?I was using Exodus, not Leviticus. Also, God contradicted himself by saying we are all made in his image but some people are just objects to use for labor. Congrats. Another problem.Right, evil men like the group of children that were mauled to death by bears (2 Kings 2:24)Right, God couldn't make things on Earth perfect because when people are in utopias they notoriously revolt. I'm saying that it is a d*ck move to allow someone to be in pain, just to repay them later. Jesus Christ you couldn't be more of a d*ck. Homosexuality is just fine because there are no victims in a consenting, healthy relationship between adults. And persecuting these harmless people is obviously bad. WHAT? Are you saying that men are intrinsically better than women? Where did I say that men are women? If you aren't implying that men are better than women, then what does that even mean? Apparently women can't preach because those god damned ovaries would get in the way. How can they preach the hateful, murderous word of a genocidal tyrant when they're just so emotional? They might just cry when talking about dashing the babies against the rocks.Numbers 31:17-18"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.