Why can't christians take their god at his word? Well only whenit suits them as is the christian way

Pro's profile says "Atheist". Let's work from there. Pro has made the several common atheist logical fallacies. 1)Trying to use an objective morality that atheism says does not exist to try and prove that a god is objectively immoral. Is homosexuality wrong? I don't know Pro. You tell me. Pro now needs to answer some questions. Is it evil to have sex with your daughter? Why or why not? Is it evil to have sex with your son? Why or why not? And if it is evil to have sex with your son or daughter, why isn't it evil for a man to have sex with a man? Now Pro, who decides which of the three, if any, are "evil"? And if none of the three are "evil", you've just supported father vs. daughter sex and father vs. son sex. Perhaps a theoretical god thinks all three are evil. A theoretical god is welcome to its theoretical opinion. Opinions aren't objectively evil. 2)Pro is committing another logical fallacy by trying to prove something that he says does not exist is immoral. Are unicorns evil? Are goblins evil? Are dragons evil? Are monsters under beds evil? Are magic rainbows evil? How about wizards? Are gods you don't believe in evil? Do tell... ---------- POINTS 1)Pro quotes Isaiah 45:7 as " I form the light, and create darkness..." This is possibly light,as from the sun vs. no light from the sun. No evil there. "I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." It looks to me that this isn't Bible god admitting to "being evil" but to bringing evil upon the wicked. An example would be "A man raped my daughter, so I grabbed my baseball bat, went to his house, and 'brought evil upon him.'" This is not me saying I am evil, but that I whipped a rapist, who deserved it in my opinion, with a bat. And this type of "evil" is one definition given in the dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com... ---------- PRO SAYS: "there's a whole bunch of other negative baggage emotions that the christian god has freely admitted to having such as anger, wrath, vengeance. rage, fury, jealousy..." None of these are objectively "evil". If someone rapes your toddler anger is the appropriate emotion. The same with rage and fury. PRO SAYS: "Jealousy? What? From a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear." According to the dictionary, jealousy can be defined as- "Vigilance in maintaining or guarding something" http://www.dictionary.com... No evil there, sorry. Protecting something that belongs to you isn't evil. ---------- PRO SAYS: "since this god has these negative emotions it proves ultimately that he is imperfect." Whether a theoretical god is or is not "imperfect" has nothing to do with a theoretical god being good or evil. ----------- PRO SAYS: "proving god hates,is evil and thus cannot be involved with love." Hate is not objectively evil. I hate liver, spinach, child molesters... No evil there, sorry. ----------- PRO SAYS: "god loves rape in his bible NU 31: 17-18" So I looked up Numbers 31:17-18. http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... And? Neither verse has anything to do with rape... ----------- PRO SAYS: "god loves yummy cannibalism in his bible LM 2: 20-22" God doesn't endorse cannibalism in this section. In verse 20, the author simply asks "Should mothers eat their own offspring?" God gives no dialogue in either of the 3 verses. Verse 21 & 22 have nothing to do with anything cannibalistic. http://biblehub.com... And even if Pro could make a "Bible god supports cannibalism" case (which he did not), cannibalism is not objectively evil. Many cultures have done it throughout history, and some still do. https://www.smithsonianmag.com... ---------- PRO SAYS: "After all god knowingly created them which means that he is ultimately responsible for them." Not actually. Parents create children. Mass murderers have parents. The parents aren't responsible for the mass murders. The murderer is. ----------- PRO SAYS: "Now here's some examples of god"s sickened, diseased, abominable atrocities for absolutely no reason at all... the great flood according to the bible (which never happened btw)" In this dialogue, Pro uses a logical fallacy of circular reasoning. 1)Pro accuses Bible god of murder and then claims the murder never happened, which means Bible god can't be a murderer. 2)Even if Bible god murdered, it is not objectively evil to murder. Examples? a)Man plots to kill me so I kill him first. b)Man was going to nuke America so I assassinated him. ----------- PRO SAYS: "For extra credit please show me ANY love from god within bible" (John 3:16) For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life https://www.ibelieve.com... -AND thus showing god actually being "happy"- "For the LORD your God is living among you. He is a mighty savior. He will take delight in you with gladness. With his love, he will calm all your fears. He will rejoice over you with joyful songs." http://biblehub.com... "AND this god leaving out his superior ego complex. " "Jesus wept." (John 11:35) http://biblehub.com... "At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly. Jesus told the crowd not to tell anyone, but the more he told them not to, the more they spread the news. http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... ---------- PRO SAYS: "Which NOBODY can even prove exists?" http://www.debate.org... https://youtu.be...