Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I don't know who said it. "For every complicated problem, there is a solution, which is easy and simple and wrong."

The insect world has worse things than mosquitoes. Much worse. Parasites that devour the host from the inside out, then burst forth. They don't prove that God does not exist. Only, that God, the source of all things, is not good.

But not happy. He has issues.

I think it's about fear. War propaganda focuses on what monsters the enemies are.

In his own way, Batman is just as ludicrous as his super power associates. Master of all martial arts, master forensic science, master pilot, master diver, master medical researcher, master chemist, master gymnast, Master Computer Science, master race car driver, master of personal flight devices, master dancer, master medic/healer -- and richer than Midas -- all women want him -- I know I left off some of his skill sets. It is pure fantasy. Just not the same fantasy.

I expect you have been following the various Ten Commandments Monument controversies. Or the public prayers at public football games. Or the invocations at various civic functions. Or the Nativity displays in front of Public Libraries and City Halls. Etc. Out of "respect" for the dominant Christian culture -- the rest of us are expected to bend over and take it. And be respectful. Even grateful. I am not as concerned for Christian sensitivities, as my highest ideals might suggest. It seems that I'm still working through my own issues. Such is the consequence, of growing up in a culture dominated by Christians.

Removal of what? We still don't know what this passer-by took offense at. What should be changed on pure speculation? Before I wander off, one final comment. Somehow, I doubt if this woman is concerned that she might have offended Von.

Thinking worthy of a young child.

Alright. Suppose that God exists and is behind religion. Which flower is the most pretty is a matter of opinion. Having an opinion about God should be the same as having an opinion about basic math. It is either the right answer or the wrong answer. If God exists and is behind religion. It holds true for Monotheism. It is false for Deism. It is false for Pantheism. If Polytheism is the case, and the gods care what we think, we should have good information about the gods. If the gods care what we think. If the gods are honest. If the gods are accurate. If Atheism is the case -- or Pantheism -- or Deism -- look around. This is it. In which case, nobody is in charge.

But they don't all have the same powers. Consider the Norse gods. Father Odin is wise. The Mighty Thor is easily tricked -- and Idun is "the sweet and simple".

That helps make my point. There is no reason to refer to "the gods" as "supreme beings". It would make sense to refer to "God" -- singular with capital G -- as the supreme being. It assumes God as the one and only. The moment we have two, they can't both be supreme. There can only be one supreme. I really don't want to come off as a grammar police. I'm only explaining my reasoning.

I agree, except for the once again part. Humanity has always created their gods. Even now, in a time when Monotheism dominates -- who or what is Mother Nature? A personification. Old Man Winter? A personification. Jack Frost? All they need is a priesthood and we have gods.

Of course. But when someone begins a conversation by declaring that he's a Christian -- do I want to preach or argue? No. I don't. It still pushes my buttons big time when I'm preached at. I don't want to preach at others -- and I have nothing to sell.

As you like. I find myself slipping from Agnosticism into a deeper Atheism. As such, I'm reluctant to preach. Well, here goes. I find that Atheism makes complicated questions into simple propositions. Why does evil exist? Why do the good suffer while the evil prosper? The answer becomes simple. Why not? It's not as though there were a guiding sentient hand in control. You ask why God permits different religions? Why is there so much violence between followers of different religions? If God existed, I would expect more uniformity in religion and less confusion. If God did not exist -- I would expect world religion to be the confused mess that it is. This alone suggests a simple absence of God. I don't find anything at all confusing about this.

The video that you're looking for is a commercial for lamb -- "the meat everyone can eat." I thought it was funny. The followers of Ganesh, the elephant headed god, took offense and had it removed from Youtube. I was quoting a Buddhist monk. "The gods are illusory, but if we ask them for assistance, they will help us anyway." Buddhism has much to say on the subject of illusion. At least the Buddhists have a sense of humor. My favorite alleged quote from Buddha is: "Fire is hot. Ice is cold. All the gods in all the heavens won't change this."

I understand "supreme" in a different way. Supreme is not only greater. Supreme is final. Consider the court system. There are different layers of judicial authority. The Supreme Court has the final say.

I could offer you my answers. The problem is; I would be answering from my own bias. I'm quite certain my answers would not work for you.

My concern here is not gender bias. I'm talking about the hot steaming pile of cultural bias, that has Monotheists defining "the gods". Why are we starting with the assumption, that the gods are "supreme beings"? Is that really how Polytheists see their gods? The original question also makes silly assumptions about harmony among the gods. Mythology suggests otherwise.

In what possible sense of the word, can "free will" be "given"? A slave might be given free will, but only if that free will were supresed in the first place -- hence, the condition of slavery.

Why are you assuming that gods and goddesses, would in any way, be "supreme beings"?

This is past crazy. A somewhere-in-the-area resident passes by and says that she is offended. No detail to go on. None at all. If she has anything more to say, let her say it. I think we're done. I am.

I don't think "funny" is the word for your beer tap tree. I would say "creative" or "different". You should have been congratulated for making it interesting. It might even have made good advertising material. You tried. It's a shame your corporate bosses were so lacking in imagination.

That is an Agnostic perspective.

In the end, what do we have? One passing woman -- who may or may not be Christian -- who took offense at a statue -- or a hat -- or a statue wearing a hat. Or did she take offense when you said "Merry Christmas?". Maybe she simply took offense at you and none of this had anything to do with anything. She finds you offensive? Maybe she doesn't like the color of your house? Or your hat? Or your shoes? Or your after shave? Or your garden? I think it's time to do the Buddhist thing and release it.