Yikes, sky dad...morals are absolute, though

[BULLDOG]

Gods opinion of incest seems to be relative as well.

 

[ding]

And a good jar of moonshine leads to passing out on top of a row of washing machines in an all night laundromat. . What is your point?

Im gunna ask a mod to remove dingerred because he is too daft to understand that the OP is about the morality of the god of the bible....hes off on one of his autistic derpderp modes because the OP triggered him.

Could be just God confounding his thoughts. There are a couple of examples of that in the Bible.

That's funny. God of the Bible's morals are relative to which covenant he is speaking from and even then, in the new covenant, theres plenty there that humans in actionable real life find reprehensible.

You mean the accounts that the Jews wrote, GT?

There are disturbed morals in any bible youd like to cherry pick.

Again, you are blaming God for the accounts of the Jews.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's always humorous to watch liberals and atheists try to critique the Bible. ... ..

They read something on Kos and run with it as truth every time.

 

[ding]

Gods opinion of incest seems to be relative as well.

You mean the Jew's opinions?

 

[BULLDOG]

Gods opinion of incest seems to be relative as well.

You mean the Jew's opinions?

Which parts do you choose to like?

 

[ding]

I wonder if the bible d0ng follows includes the story of the murderous flood

Murder is absolutely wrong in the conclusions of human morality.

God of the bible? Oh, its relative.

Or maybe you misunderstand that the account of the flood was an allegorical description of an actual event that was recorded by the Jews of an oral tradition that was passed down from generation to generation.

Do you really believe that God sent a flood to kill all of mankind, GT?

 

[ding]

It's always humorous to watch liberals and atheists try to critique the Bible. ... ..

They read something on Kos and run with it as truth every time.

I quoted actual biblical scripture.

No. You are arguing a literal interpretation of something you don't believe.

 

[ding]

Gods opinion of incest seems to be relative as well.

You mean the Jew's opinions?

Which parts do you choose to like?

You mean like how the Tower of Babel was an allegorical account of the migration of the cradle of civilization?

 

[BULLDOG]

Gods opinion of incest seems to be relative as well.

You mean the Jew's opinions?

Which parts do you choose to like?

You mean like how the Tower of Babel was an allegorical account of the migration of the cradle of civilization?

I mean like "I believe this, but I don't believe that"

 

[ding]

Could be just God confounding his thoughts. There are a couple of examples of that in the Bible.

That's funny. God of the Bible's morals are relative to which covenant he is speaking from and even then, in the new covenant, theres plenty there that humans in actionable real life find reprehensible.

You mean the accounts that the Jews wrote, GT?

There are disturbed morals in any bible youd like to cherry pick.

Again, you are blaming God for the accounts of the Jews.

Any God youd like to discuss has these issues, of the major world religions.

The issue is yours, GT. I take ancient writings with a grain of salt. I don't need to build strawmen to make myself feel superior to others. Real logic works just fine for me.

 

[ding]

Gods opinion of incest seems to be relative as well.

You mean the Jew's opinions?

Which parts do you choose to like?

You mean like how the Tower of Babel was an allegorical account of the migration of the cradle of civilization?

I mean like "I believe this, but I don't believe that"

I believe that there is a final state of fact for everything. We call this objective truth or reality. That once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, it is eternal and unchanging. Which is the only solution to the first cause conundrum. This I know to be God. Ergo, God is existence. I am.

 

[del]

somewhere, aquinas chuckles

 

[james bond]

We got evidence of Noah's flood right here. God used atheist dweeb Bill Nye to unknowingly reveal it. The waters came up from the



"An international team of scientists led by Graham Pearson, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Arctic Resources at the U of A, has discovered the first-ever sample of a mineral called ringwoodite. Analysis of the mineral shows it contains a significant amount of water — 1.5 per cent of its weight — a finding that confirms scientific theories about vast volumes of water trapped 410 to 660 kilometres beneath Earth’s surface, between the upper and lower mantle.
“This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area,” said Pearson, a professor in the Faculty of Science, whose findings were published March 13 in Nature. “That particular zone in the Earth, the transition zone, might have as much water as all the world’s oceans put together.”
Ringwoodite is a form of the mineral peridot, believed to exist in large quantities under high pressures in the transition zone. Ringwoodite has been found in meteorites but, until now, no terrestrial sample has ever been unearthed because scientists haven’t been able to conduct fieldwork at extreme depths. (source)."

Scientists Confirm Biblical Account of the ‘Fountains of The Deep’

 

[ding]

You mean the accounts that the Jews wrote, GT?

There are disturbed morals in any bible youd like to cherry pick.

Again, you are blaming God for the accounts of the Jews.

Any God youd like to discuss has these issues, of the major world religions.

The issue is yours, GT. I take ancient writings with a grain of salt. I don't need to build strawmen to make myself feel superior to others. Real logic works just fine for me.

No, it actually doesnt because you posted cs lewis pasaages that had no less than 50 logical fallacies and youre too redundant and daft to understand a single one of them.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to prove that, right?

 

[ding]

somewhere, aquinas chuckles

Why?