god has no moral compass

First, I'll keep this simple since you keep saying you cannot understand what I am responding. Also, in a debate, the burden of proof resides on each person for their claims. You stated that the Bible cannot be trusted. you copy and pasted a passage from "The Dossier of Reason" which claimed as much -- you have then, logically, defunct your own evidence. You now claim that the verses prove your point. Either the verses can be trusted as you stated or they cannot be trusted as you have also stated. If they are trusted, then you must confront the elements from my first post of context for the verses and obedience of God, plus the moral quandary of if God can be held to a human limitation and definition. Second, it is your job to check my references to the claims I have made, that's how reasoning works. If you wish to not confront the validity of those points, then you must provide other points that support your claim that God has no moral compass. Questioning if God exists is not within the scope of your premise. Third, you job also requires you to make logical and well reasoned stances, simply claiming something as fact does not make it fact. "due to the fact of the power of conversation ration. It's why its one of the main reasons why your god would never use text, the worst form of communication possible." Yeah, I've already discussed how text stands the test of time and allows for references to be made back and forth and can be used to validate future materials. You have to now prove your point that text is a terrible medium and possibly provide alternative methods that God should have thought of to give to mankind millennia ago. Your lack of comprehension is not my folly. Again, claiming my hand is terrible does not make it so. You have to prove it is a terrible hand, not just make a spurious claim. Regardless of the facts at my disposal, you haven't yet laid down a clear definition of immorality. You haven't yet approached the moral question of if a creator of life is subject to human interpretations of life. You haven't yet defined any aspect of your premise. What of my character tells you I have no fathom of immorality? What about me gives you the right to disparage my character and claim what I know and don't know? How is my refusal to back down from you a cue that I have no morality? Again, you claim the verse are sick and nasty and horrible which is fine with me -- again, I suggest to you to pick a verse and let's look at it at length. I saw that another debater attempted this same debate with you and you blew up at him over the verse of Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Yet a learned person would know to check the context if they were troubled by this verse. So let's do that shall we? Isaiah is a Hebrew text, the English version you references is a translation that identifies evil as "hardship or judgement" while the Hebrew text literally writes: "...I bring affliction...". Regardless of your interpretation the context of this verse still discusses obedience. The whole length deals with God praising Israel for obedience and removing his favors (one of which is protection) for their disobedience. Do you discipline a child? Certainly. Do you remove your kindness in their obstinate time? Sure. Do you remove your love? Never. Again you lacked context of the verse and understanding of the verse. So, you're saying that it's okay to take a single line out of context and decide whole issues with it? You state in your 3rd paragraph that it is not needed. So if this conversation was handled face-to-face in a state with "fighting words" laws you'd be okay with the consequences of one single line you said to me at this time? You would feel great going in to court to discuss how that one statement you made that disrespected me was not actually slander? That it didn't throw discredit on me? Or would you argue there was context? Again, whether God exists or not is not part of this debate. You set the premise. And, regardless, you can't prove He doesn't exist either, and simply saying that I cannot prove his existence is not evidence of his lack of existence. It is not fact nor is it truth. If you have the magic bullet that pulls the plug on this God conspiracy for thousands of years and billions of believers, fire away! Simple point of fact, again, I don't have to prove God exists for this debate, you began the debate with the premise that He did exist and that He has no moral compass. However, scientific laws are quite clear, a lack of evidence is not evidence. An object that is supernatural or preternatural is not testable by natural means. But let's throw a fun one out there just for kicks and giggles. I'll even make it a soft one that can easily be argued -- Ezekiel is a book that is without a doubt written in the BCE. The book, the letters, the references, even the time line checks out. Plus, we even have a really, really old copy of it. Yet, somehow, Ezekiel either made a really lucky guess, or someone told him the future, because in Ezekiel chapters 36 and 37 he talks about the rebirth of the nation of Israel. Totally weird right? Since Israel was still a nation, it had just been captured by the Babylonians. But he even called out the diaspora of Israel and darn near to the day got the year right of when Israel would be reborn. Now, without a crystal ball (which would be a supernatural event and thus beyond the scope of science) or the ear of a god, how did he know? Here's a fun link to a simple article if you'd like to do due diligence: http://www.christiantruthcenter.com... Now, I have given you some evidence that God just might be out there. Your job would be to refute this claim, however, yet again, this was not the scope of your original premise, which already stated that God existed. I find it comical how you cut my sentences in halves and ignore the parts you don't like. Again, you used the verses as facts, thus in your premise they are true. You can't, once again, argue they are false, otherwise your premise is false. If the brutality in the bible is real, and not horror movie fantasy which you now claim, then you must accept your own premise that the Bible speaks truth. If you are now saying they are false, then your premise is false, because that is how you structured your own argument. I find it quite ironic that you choose to step out of the argument without so much as a shred of evidence to your claim, let alone the evidence you provided you now disparage and claim as false. You can question my ability to know right from left and up from down and fact from fiction all day long, but -- then I actually met you on your ground and saw to your demands and I am the one still standing at the end of it all. Lastly, what gives you the authority to instill your beliefs upon another person? Let alone what gives you the right to instill your morality upon God? You can claim, and I know you will, that it's okay because he doesn't exist, but that doesn't answer the original question you posed. Have you ever killed a spider? An ant? Even accidentally? Was that a life you were allowed to take, and if so, why? Have you ever ate meat? Or a vegetable? Or a fruit? If so, was that a life you were allowed to take, and why? You didn't create any of those lives, and remember your premise clearly stated that God exists, and He created all things. Pretty sure you cited that in your original post. So, why are you allowed to take a life, but He, the creator, the restorer of life, cannot? What gives you that authority? Same question as what gives you the authority to disrespect me so much? How are you greater than anyone?