But on a serious note, why the fascination on male-male relations? Why not female-female?

Why, in the attempts to vilify equal marriage rights for gays, is there such a focus on male-male relations? I'm assuming you are a male, and, therefore, your own insecurities cause you to fixate on male genitalia. Do you find female-female relationships equally disturbing?

No matter how well versed you may consider yourself or any apologist in the "divine and true word of the lord," what you are reading is a translation of a translation of a re-edited of a re-edited of a translated story which was originally passed down without a written copy for generations. Do you even consider the possibility that what you are accepting could be even partially made up, or mistranslated, or something important omitted? The best anyone has is a limited understanding of an archaic collection of stories.

I just finished my introduction to Dawkins via The God Delusion and that one is next on my list.

Greg Hendler's condescension is unwarranted. From my reading of Dawkins, he takes the position that a man may have existed who was a decent moral teacher. This man may have been named Jesus, or that name may have been adopted as he was mythologized over the decades leading to the gospels, as well as in the centuries later. This man needn't be supernatural in order to have actually existed. There is no need to presuppose he was "Jesus Christ in his all-powerful and all-knowing state" who would have to "denied Himself and His Father on the spot." Obviously the author has never read Dawkins, but merely cuts the corners in his research to create an emotionally driven argument.

Just because a majority believes something to be true, that does not make it true. This has been proven time and time again.

No. No. No. Deists are different than theists.

God is all knowing, therefore it was he who foresaw the rising of warfare and anarchy in the Horn of Africa and totalitarian dictatorship in North Korea. God could have prevented it, but didn't. Then, while others of us decided to donate money to help Africa recover, he decided to screw everyone over by creating a drought. Either way, your point leads to the same answer on my part. If god is all powerful, then he was in control of these situations, whether man-made or natural. I wouldn't say this is "what I want to believe." I grew up in a religious family, but realized later on that the world makes a lot more sense without injecting a god.

There definitely can be good without bad...on the scale to which there is currently bad. 12 million are malnourished in the Horn of Africa alone. There are millions starving elsewhere in Africa and in North Korea, and, while less visibly, here. They don't have to starve so that the rest of us don't. If that is the way god designed it, he did a terrible terrible job and doesn't deserve to be worshiped. There is no evidence that a god created the world, only a lack of total explanation by current scientific understanding. Your god is the god of the gaps, and he gets smaller every day.

Work so perfectly together? Wars. Diseases. Famines. If there is a god who designed this world, he did a pretty lousy job.