god has no moral compass

Michael, I am impressed. You responded with material. Before I begin, I'm curious how you wish to achieve your goals of peace and morality when you berate someone? When you are spouting spiteful, perhaps hateful, diatribe rather than actually responding to someone showing equality? I have given you respect and I have given you patience, and you have shown neither to me. How you rationalize such behavior being an advocate of morality? Doesn't such behavior create dissonance and disrespect? Also, you claim I have no knowledge to which I speak. You haven't countered or re-countered my claims, so... what's your basis for this claim on my ability? This part of the debate could be so simple if I follow YOUR method by claiming that you have no evidence for God not existing and then saying you have no knowledge for anything you've said and ignoring your claims. However, I am not that unprepared nor am I that inept. Now, let's address your concerns dealing with the moral test. Again, you have failed to establish that a deity is subject to human moral relativism (round 1) and you still have not provided any evidence whatsoever that this should be the case (round 1 and 3). Also, at this time, I reject your claim that God is subject to your view of morality, which you have failed to establish as well. But, let's assume a human can place moral restrictions on a creator deity, whom we assume exists because of, once again, your initial premise claims He does. I first need to know whose morality do we use to judge all people? I have lived in countries where they eat cats, but in the US, cats are pets not food, and in Ancient Egypt they were sacred and revered as a goddess. So let's answer your questions... 1 -- According to the latest International Humanist and Ethical Union's Freedom of Thought report, 13 countries currently have laws on the books carrying a penalty of death for blasphemy or apostasy. Including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Such laws have also existed in ancient civilizations. Can we use their versions of morality? Why or why not? 2 -- Whose sabbath day do we use? Some cultures use Friday. Some use Saturday. Some claim Sunday. Some claim Wednesday. Some don't even acknowledge it. So, whose moral sabbath are we talking about? Are you aware that many, many, many trainers, doctors, and psychologists discuss the necessity for a day of rest and meditation as it causes us undo wear and tear on our bodies and minds? So, can we use morality to improve health quality for those of us who work or are on call 24/7/365? Note: Jesus did work on the Sabbath, oh and in Luke 6 he told the priests that they had perverted the law and used it for their own advantages. You would know that, if you read the text rather than copy and pasted from someone else. You would also know that there was a new covenant made with the coming of a messiah as his purpose was to fulfill the law of God -- which you claimed as "FAKE" yet you established from the beginning that the verses are valid and factual evidence, thus hey, it's gotta be right. I'm just using your rules you established. This will become even more important later as we look at the new covenant, since we're discussing God's moral compass we have to use the texts that deal specifically with His teachings. Again, YOUR premise! 3 -- Ask my grandmother who promised to take me out of this world every time I was obstinate. Just obstinate. Can we use her moral code? If not, why not? You still have not established a premise for whose moral code is superior to lead the human race and that God is accountable to. 4-- Adultery carries a bunch of problems with it from psychological detachment disorders. For example we are now learning that the brain can actually become too accustomed to the Serotonin and Oxytocin which creates feelings of attachment. This is leading to numerous problems, one of which is the devaluation of life. Let's follow biological precedent through it's natural course? Or do we need to stop that? You claimed in round two that you could rip my throat out and throw it in the disposal for being ignorant, so, by that standard can I not harm someone who hurts me, possibly to the point of killing them? What about those people who get STDs and then share them? Where do you stand on those who have HIV and do not tell their sex partners purposely spreading the disease? Is that a crime or an "oops"? However, since you said at the end that if I answered yes to any of these questions, then I am immoral. Therefore, you must be supportive of life not wanting adulterous to be killed, yet you're pro the devaluation of life which promiscuity engenders, and I'm assuming you're pro-abortion, yet you told me earlier under no circumstance should life be taken (see round 3's questions about killing lesser lives)? 5 -- Again, there are countless cultures throughout history who are okay with killing homosexuals and countless others which say it is not okay. Which culture do we choose and why? What gives that culture the moral high ground? Again, your challenge to the accuracy of the Bible has been refuted by my post in Round 2. You still haven't shown me any evidence of your claim being remotely valid. Just glimpses of accusations -- and yet I gave you actual statistical, verifiable, and historical data -- unless science isn't reliable. Dang that logical reasoning skill of science! I tell ya what! 6 -- I'm assuming form this post you don't understand what "other gods" means in this text. It's all about someone's heart and what they value most. Many times those other gods carry their own punishment. However, according to your posts here in this thread, you have already told me that my worship of God makes me unfit for life since I don't bow to your values. So, you have answered this question yourself as a "Yes". That's two "Yes"s for Michael and according to your own test, "If you answer "yes" to any of the questions, it means you are totally bankrupt and immoral" But I digress -- Now let's look at things from a Biblical perspective, As the verses you used to begin your argument must be true, because they are the evidence you used to prove God is immoral, they must be true, or logically you have no argument to begin with, making the scriptures are fair game and truth. Thus, assuming God exists and assuming the Bible is truth, then God is also the law giver (Isaiah 33:22 -- For the LORD is our Judge...). The Bible establishes death in a few ways, one of which is considered a spiritual death and then the physical death, Genesis 2:17 is kind of the first glimpse we get of this. Ephesians 4:17-19 helps us out more: "So I tell you this, and testify to it in the Lord: You must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts. Having lost all sense of shame, they have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity, " So, again, as you established in your premise the scriptures are true -- thus God has established a death which separates us from Him when we break his laws (sin). So, I'm going to lob you an easy question, which death is being spoken of in all of your moral questions? Spiritual or physical? "The Law provided harsh penalties for wrongdoing, including the sin of blasphemy. One of the purposes of the Law was to establish the conviction that God is holy. God"s name, as an expression of His nature, is also holy (Psalm 99:3; Luke 1:49). The coming of Christ signaled a transition in how God's people are identified. They had been previously identified through the Jewish culture and a theocratic marriage of "church" and state. With Jesus came the New Covenant, and God"s people were identified internally: "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). In order to provide open access to God, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law (Matthew 5:17). No longer were sacrifices necessary because He was the once-for-all sacrifice. No longer were specific dress requirements necessary. And no longer were God"s people identified by a state under theocratic rule. " -- J. I. Packer That alone should suffice many of your questions, but again, I feel the need to remind you, according to your initial claim, the verses are true and God does exist. Also, your premise that text is a horrible source material went challenged and you refused to answer or even examine the challenges posed, therefore there can be no truth to you claim that God would not use text as truth, by definition, remains true and constant under all inquiries into its components. Your claim from the Dossier of Reason has not remained constant under the inquiries and can be logically surmised as NOT TRUE. Your answers you said you knew my stance on already: 1-- answered above 2 -- 3 --Pretty much deals with the same premise as 1 -- thus answered. 4 -- 5 -- Sin is a spiritual death -- physical death of course not, that isn't my job as a Christian first of all as Jesus gave us the Great Comission (Matt 28:16-something). "Christians" are told to "restore them gently" (Galations 6:1). 6 -- spiritual death obviously so because you're not right with God -- physical death No, and no one is under this law biblically any longer due to the new covenant (Galations 2:16) I assume you're going to take my words out of context and that you're going to completely ignore the questions that confront you. Why don't you simply tell me what you really want because it is clear you're not here for a debate