Do you believe in god? Sorry you have no free will.

Backwardseden, I was sad to read that you are not going to be continuing this debate. I was enjoying discussing this with you and would love to keep talking about it together. I'm writing a response even though you told me that you would not read it, because I want to acknowledge your concerns, not just for your sake, but for the sake of the people watching. You argued that if God cared about speaking to his people, he would do so more clearly- after all, it's hard to interpret 'text' as a form of communication. But if you look closely, you'd see that the Bible doesn't blur any lines. It doesn't contradict itself, change, or use vague, confusing terms. The message of the Gospel is incredibly clear. Obviously, there are disagreements about how to interpret certain aspects, but that's not the fault of the Bible. The Bible all lines up- sixty-six different books are written by people who had never even met, and yet their accounts are remarkably similar. The different versions of the Bible are created by PEOPLE. God didn't make different versions in order to confuse people. It's just a different way of looking at the same text. We can't blame God for confusions in the translation. As for God coming down and talking with people, Christians believe that he does if we are only willing to listen to him. You will hear thousands of stories of people who heard God's voice directly- I am one of them, and my Mother had a similar experience when she adopted my brother. But God is guiding us and actively working in us, and the Bible is one of the ways that he does that. He doesn't always need to directly speak to us when we have his words on paper already. I'll move on from that, and address your next argument, which concerns the idea of objective morality. You said, " (I am) a person who cares about humanity, peace, love, caring about each other, kindness, love, and harmony, which your God is 100% incapable of...I have morals. You're God is completely immoral..." By saying this, you are stating two things. 1. Objective morality exists; and 2. God violates it But you have yet to offer any proof of where morality should come from, except from God. You claim that homosexuality is not something that should be punished, for instance, but God obviously believes otherwise. And yet, how can you claim that you are right, and God is violating morality, if the standard of morality is apart from God? Your view of this 'morality' is distorted because you rely only on what you 'feel' should be right, leading you to make assumptions about right and wrong that go against what Christians believe. But if you are only relying on what you 'feel', then how can you argue against what Christians believe is the source of objective morality- God? You're right that there are a lot of Christians who will disagree with me about homosexuality. These people will turn to violence and cruelty to preserve what they believe Christianity stands for. However, I believe that this goes directly against Jesus' commands to love our neighbor and 'remove the log from our own eye before criticizing others'. Homosexuality is wrong, but people who are gay are still created in God's image and deserve our love and respect. I believe that God will punish sin, and that certainly includes homosexuality. You accuse me of mincing words, but I believe I've stated my beliefs perfectly clearly. God MUST punish sin, because he is just and righteous, but he is willing to forgive anyone who will turn from their sin and embrace a life with him. Homosexuals are no different. Yes, God will put to death anyone who remains in their sin and refuses him, homosexuality included. But that's not because he's cruel- it's because he's just. Yes, it's true that the actual word 'homosexuality' was not in the Hebrew language, because it wasn't nearly as big of a problem at the time. But the Bible speaks clearly about men being with men and women with women- the actual word itself is irrelevant. You argued that by issuing the death warrant on anyone, it means that he hates them. But this is completely ridiculous. Christians believe that God sacrificed his very son so that he could redeem from death and Hell anyone who repented of their sins. God has and will continue to punish sin- that is what is righteous and just. But he has also provided a pathway to eternal life. When you look at this, you can in no way argue that God is unfair. He is both just and merciful, and it would be wrong to refuse to punish sinners. You started by establishing that the laws make no sense, and Christians should not be held accountable for breaking them. But the evidence that you have provided for all of these is faulty. You've given no basis for what morality should look like, you've given laws as proof that only prove the justice and goodness of God, and therefore, it's an obvious conclusion that Christians should be held accountable for breaking God's law. You gave several videos to try to prove your idea that God promotes slavery. But rarely were points produced that I did not already address. I've talked about the idea of a bondservant in Exodus, and we've talked about the relevance of the verses listed- none of them prove exactly what you are trying to prove. And they failed to respect other points of view as well. In the first one, where the three men were debating, the two men didn't even give Stephen a chance to respond to their complaints. They just continued to yell at him and when he tried to answer, they cut him off halfway through so that his arguments were out of context and sounded wrong. You said that you could not continue with this conversation- that I'm completely brainwashed and I can't prove my point. But I'm not relying on dreams and fantasies. I'm turning to real logic to try to prove my point. I've countered all of your points, and you still haven't offered me any proof for why God cannot co-exist with free will. Instead, you attack my person by claiming that I use no logic, but still, you have yet to prove your points yourself. I am still hoping that you will respond to this, but I understand if you will not. I don't want to pressure you into continuing and understand if you wish to stop. Thank you for discussing this with me. It was truly a pleasure, and I hope we can continue to talk and possibly be friends.