That's hardly true. If I were to give a simple analogy, it would be similar to those old-school "Choose-your-own-adventure" books. The author of the book knows the outcome, no matter which option the reader takes.
failed analogy, the book writer does not know which option will be chosen nor did he create the person doing the chosing. The author does not know the outcome, because he has to wait for the person to choose, god however, knows the outcome, making choice a veil that the person beleives to exist.
something is wrong with my computer, the quote function wont work and its taking forever for my replies to post. so forgive me if this comes out fugged up.
"One, Lot did that out of cowardice. NOBODY ordered Lot to do so, not his visitors or anyone else.
Two, God didn't ask for any human sacrifice (as far as that silly reference to Jephthah is concerned. In fact, I don't recall the Lord asking him for ANY SACRIFICE, whatsoever).
Three, notwithstanding the debate as to whether the punishment awaiting those who reject the Lord is eternal or not, who exactly says that it's immoral?
It's what I said earlier, without some standard of right or wrong, you have no basis on which to declare something moral vs. immoral. And, neither do these silly Bible critics or "thinking atheists"."
hell is said to be an eternal fire, the pope said so himself recently, he said, "hells fires are real and they are eternal". It is immoral because being punished forever for something that happened once is a gross misconduct, there is no room for recovery, the punishment does not fit the crime a million times over. Also, the crime is petty, not accepting jesus? really, for eternal torture? ya that seems moral to me. But i could rape a baby, kill ten woman, eat three kids then repent and become born again and avoid that fate? ya real moral and rational.I'll have to read up on lot, I have just heard the story being read, and read the story on the internet.
"Listen to what you just said. "The last option would be killing everyone". That means (1) that would be an option, nonetheless and; (2) you've conveniently forgotten the opportunities that Israel had to repent, prior to judgment hitting them.
Again, what happens when Israel (or any other nation) CONTINUES to violate your laws, your covenant, your guidelines that you've established with them, jeopardizing other people's lives, in the process?"
sure there are infinite options if i was all-powerful aren't there? and of the many i can think of killing everyone seems ridiculous especially if you consider god knew the outcome before he created them, how sick is that?
WRT irasel, i would just change there minds, create new rules, move the goalposts, im all powerful am i not? people do that now a days, violate rules, large groups of people do, we don't kill them all, even teh innocent children like god ordered to do. Killing innocent children is terrible no matter what the crimes of the parents. It would be like us hanging sadam husseins daughter alongside him because her father was evil, makes sense, amirite
"IF morality were inborn, you wouldn't have to teach your kids manners. You wouldn't have to teach them ethics or civics."
your going to have to define morality, because manners are not what i consider morals to a point. It is known in psychology that as infants age they gain a sense of right or wrong, this is based on altruism and reciprocity, i know its wrong to punch you in the face for no reason because it hurts, and i wouldn't liked being punched in the face. Thus, random face punching is immoral, however, if you hit me i feel as though i should hit you back, reciprocity at it's finest, works like a charm for almost all moral things. Try one.
"The simple fact is that you MUST do so, else risk having thoroughbred-brats, running amok in your house."
Not sure about that, the environment, school, peers and genetics all play a part in a persons moral fabric. If you have a kid with Borderline personality disorder, ADHD, you are going to have a hard time instilling morals on them, it's the nature vs nuture debate, it's obvious that it is a conglomerate.
"If morality is simply relative, then it's OK if I rob you at gunpoint, as long as I can justify it in my own mind. After all, that "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is so old and outdated by your standards."
didn't say that, strawman, read my example above. I wouldn't rob you at gunpoint because i dont want to be robbed at gunpoint, it would inflict pain on you, decrease my social network, possibly remove me from the group as no one would trust me. This simple explanation trumps your explanation as god as the source of morality. I know this because your god is immoral, he does things that many disagree with, if he was the authority it wouldnt be that way.
"And, should you get married, your wife shouldn't be expected to remain faithful to you in the least. If she wants to screw the poolboy or the mailman, that's fine, per your standards of "movable" morality.""
again, if she wants a stable income from me, father to her children, a realiable life then why would she do that. Such simple explanations to things you christians seem dumbfounded about. Morality serves an evolutionary purpose, it's obvious I just outlined it three seperate times, i also outlined why killing everyone while knowing everything, and being able to do everything is wrong.
The fact that he had to kill everyone because he was displeased shows me that god is not perfect. He knew the future, yet still carried on then decided he didn't like his work and corrected the MISTAKE. perfection wouldn't make mistakes, so it's either he is sick and likes killing, or is not all powerful and all knowing. I left out the most important option, he doesn't exist, the flood never happened and the bible is fiction.
