Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#721
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?
It is not me who is important; it is what the Word of God actually says.
You say that, and so does every other Christian.
God's word is the standard. 

How do you know which Christian is correct?
First, you have to understand there is a correct interpretation. Then you have to pay attention to hermeneutics and exegesis. 

Topic's author
#722
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...speaks to our hearts and minds...
Your heart and your mind VALIDATE your version of "truth".
The heart is the source for it directs the will. The mind reasons and includes emotions. 
Topic's author
#723
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
A multitude of errors usually conceals the truth. Truth is exacting. 1+1=2.
You're conflating FACT and OPINION.

Mathematics =/= MEANINGFULNESS
It is just an example that the truth is very narrow, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. As with quantitative values (maths), so with qualitative values. There has to be a fixed reference for truth. It does not change, whether it applies to subjective facts (Betty has grey hair and is 98 years old) or objective facts (1+1=2; murder is wrong). The truth of the matter is that Betty is actually 98 years old and has grey hair. That statement either corresponds to what is the case, or it is not true in the first place.  

You can never use an "IS" (fact) to substantiate an "OUGHT" (moral commandment).
I wasn't trying to do that. I was giving you an example you could picture as an example of truth. Truth has a specific identity, whether with empirical measures or abstract value measures. 

And mathematics is meaningful or else it would not be comprehendible.

#724
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
A true nihilist would never speak to anyone.
I don't think that's true. 
What possible motive would a nihilist have for speaking to someone?
#725
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It is just an example that the truth is very narrow, whether quantitatively or qualitatively.
Mathematical "truth" is TAUTOLOGICAL.

This tautological function is only possible because mathematics is based on rigorously defined explicit primary AXIOMS.

Mathematical "truth" is QUANTITATIVE.

You can't just say "quantitatively or qualitatively" and pretend they're not OPPOSITE (mutually exclusive) CONCEPTS.
#726
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
There has to be a fixed reference for truth.
There must be a "fixed reference" (EXPLICIT PRIMARY AXIOMS) for "truth" (TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENTS).
#727
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
What possible motive would a nihilist have for speaking to someone?

Because they want to?
#728
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
You can do things without a moral reason to do them. . . 
Topic's author
#729
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I point you to the standard, Jesus Christ - true north;
Do you really and truly strive to "love thine enemy" as Jesus instructed?
I do, yet I fall short like everyone other than Jesus. I realize I can never measure up to the perfect Messiah. That is why I need Him as my Messiah to save me from my sins. I recognize that I have sinned. I hate injustice, hate wrong in myself and others. I care enough about my enemies to speak with them and point out or demonstrate why their belief system is untrue. If I were indifferent or uncaring, I would not bother. I have taken a lot of time and effort to answer every post you have sent me in detail, even if I am two web pages short of catching up. 


#730
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The truth of the matter is that Betty is actually 98 years old and has grey hair.
I know Betty personally and they do not appear to be anywhere near 98 years old, and they do not have any visible grey hair.

A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.

(IFF) someone tells you their name is "Betty" (AND) that person tells you they are "98 years old" (AND) that person appears to have naturally grey hair on their head (THEN) you know EXACTLY ONE FACT ABOUT THEM (namely, you can empirically demonstrate that at least some of the hair on their head appears to be naturally grey at least on the side that you were able to observe in the lighting conditions available at the time the data was gathered).
Topic's author
#731
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Magnetic north leads you in the right direction, the general direction.
So, we agree that a "fixed reference point" is not a prerequisite.
You first have to have a true north as a reference point. North means something if it is not a fixed location. If it does not have a fixed reference point, it can be anywhere. Thus, true north is the reference point that magnetic north references. 

"Here comes the problem:
The magnetic north is not a clear indication of the true geographical north. The difference between the magnetic and true north can be described as magnetic declination."

So, magnetic north with take you in the general direction of true north. 
#732
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
What possible motive would a nihilist have for speaking to someone?
Because they want to?
Why would a nihilist, who by definition has no motive, "want" to speak to someone?

A nihilist recognizes no "meaning" and therefore has no motive.

To a nihilist, all things are "meaningless".

This quite logically leads us to conclude they don't understand (and or recognize and or acknowledge) the "meaning" of words.
#733
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
You can do things without a moral reason to do them. . . 
Are you conflating "nihilist" with "moral-nihilist"?
#734
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you know which Christian is correct?
First, you have to understand there is a correct interpretation. Then you have to pay attention to hermeneutics and exegesis. 
Does your understanding of "a correct interpretation" match up with any established doctrine, or is your "a correct interpretation" a "fresh-new-illumination" of "The Word"?
#735
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you really and truly strive to "love thine enemy" as Jesus instructed?
I do, yet I fall short like everyone other than Jesus. I realize I can never measure up to the perfect Messiah.
In light of this specific teaching, do you support your nation's military?
#736
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I have taken a lot of time and effort to answer every post you have sent me in detail,
And I greatly appreciate your tenacity.
#737
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you conflating "nihilist" with "moral-nihilist"?

Sure? My point about Christianity and morality was clearly about moral nihilism. 
Topic's author
#738
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Because we are subjective beings who are influenced by so many things and have so many beliefs, sometimes misconceptions in one area lead to greater misconceptions.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, there really and truly is an "objective" moral standard.

And let's say, for the sake of argument, this "objective" moral standard is written in some sort of code in like a really really really old book.

And let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you have the one true understanding of this "objective" moral code.

You figured it out.

Now, if you're the only one who knows the one-true-unchanging-universal-perfect-moral-code, how do you convince other Christians that you're right and they're wrong?
First, this is hypothetical. I would never presume to believe I was the only one. That is asinine. 

In the case of Elijah, God demonstrated Baal was a false god through Elijah. God demonstrates to us through His word. Thus, my appeal is to His word. As I said before, I can't make someone believe who does not want to believe.

Like the Calvinists.
I think the five tenents (TULIP) of Calvinism as sound. I believe in a sovereign God, not sovereign humans. 

Or perhaps the Amish.  How did they misunderstand everything in the Bible so badly for so many years?
Usually through eisegeses. 

How do you convince them that you're the only one who knows the "true-truth"?
I have learned the hard way you cannot convince anyone who does not want to be convinced. 

AND, iff you're unable to convince them, how can you distinguish your "true-truth" from what they're going to call it, "your personal opinion"?
To the best of my limited ability through reason and logic.

You can't simply slap a label of "objectivity" on your OPINION and then crow about how "objective" it is.  It just makes you sound like you're trying to trick everyone (all the other true-Christians).
Right now, in these posts, I am arguing for a necessary objective standard that is a personal Being, and it is not you or me. Objectivity and subjectivity are mindful abstract terms that correspond to truth claims and the actual case of what is. Thus, it takes a being to think in such terms of what is objective and what is subjective. I am asking you to present what you think is necessary for objective moral values. So far, you have given me nothing but preferences. What makes preferences objective? What makes them moral? 

 I keep asking you (without you answering me) how you can have the 'good' or the 'right' without referencing a fixed, unchanging necessary standard. And when someone discovers that fixed, unchanging standard, that is what truth is. Truth does not change, in the sense that even what is subjectively true of you at this point in time will always be true for that point of time. Here is an example of what I mean by a subjective truth --> Ronald Reagan was the USA President from January 20, 1981, until January 20, 1989. Even though that truth applies only to Ronald Reagan, it is always true that he was president during that time frame. Truth does not change. Truth is always true, or else truth would be false, which is a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is self-refuting. When you have two statements that are opposite and logical contradictions, it means one of the two propositions is false (the car is completely blue/the car is completely yellow). Either something is the case, or it is not. It can't be both the case and not the case simultaneously and in the same relationship.  Thus, when two people or two countries both believe the opposite is true, one is wrong. I.e., Abortion is morally wrong (in most cases) as opposed to abortion is morally right (in most cases). You may wonder why I put the brackets "in most cases" into the statement? The reason is that abortion is sometimes necessary to save one of the two lives, or else both would die, such as tubal pregnancies. The unborn is not viable in such cases; it cannot survive outside the womb because it is not developed enough, and by it remaining, it will kill the woman too, which would result in its death. 
#739
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
1). This doesn't address my argument. I explained why my needs have no impact on your control over your own body. You aren't addressing that.

2). This is not an argument, but an assertion. Fwiw, pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship either.

3). False equivalence. There is no requirement a newborn live off the body of a particular individual - there are many paths to survival.

4). Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy anymore than participating in social activities is consent to contracting Covid-19.

5). Abortion is not killing someone anymore than you refusing to donate a kidney is killing someone else in need of one. (I think you missed the point of the analogy).

6). An 'eye for an eye' leaves the world blind (and without kidneys). 

7). Abortion is not terminating an "innocent human life" - it is terminating pregnancy. Again, if you refuse your kidney to someone who needs it, you are not killing them or denying them a right to life.
Additionally, I don't accept the notion of 'higher rights'. Rights are meant to make life the best it can be and claiming any one is more important than the others misses the point. In other words, your right to life doesn't outweigh any of my rights and vice versa. Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins...your right to live ends where my body begins.

8). You have the analogy backward. The person needing the kidney is analogous to the unborn. 

9). Sex is not consent to pregnancy - addressed above.

10). You are arguing consent and rights in general are non existent when they cannot be understood? Can someone without the ability to understand right from wrong do whatever they like? Laws are applicable to everyone.

11). Most abortions occur by medication long before the ability to feel pain or awareness has developed and at least half of all conceptions end *naturally*-You're attempting to poison the well with emotionality built on dishonesty and/or ignorance. 

12). Consenting to vaginal sex is not consent to use of spleen, liver, mind, or uterus. As said before, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy - it is consent to share one's body with another who exists at that moment.

13). If you were using my body to live, I *do* get to disconnect you - even if that means you will die. My body is my domain.

14). The ability to experience life's beauty is what makes life valuable...and more of that experience does not devalue that life. Having the capacity to experience being alive is what makes life special. Lacking that capacity (and never having achieved it) is at best potential. Potential experience =/= experience. Potential life =/= life











Topic's author
#740
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
Researchers at the Kwansei Gakuin University in Japan,  devised an experimental box with two compartments divided by a transparent partition. On one side of the box, a rat was forced to swim in a pool of water, which it strongly disliked. Although not at risk of drowning—the animal could cling to a ledge—it did have to tread water for up to 5 minutes. The only way the rodent could escape its watery predicament was if a second rat—sitting safe and dry on a platform—pushed open a small round door separating the two sides, letting it climb onto dry land. Within a few days, the high-and-dry rats were regularly aiding their soaking companions by opening the door, the team reports  in Animal Cognition. They did not open the door when the pool was dry, confirming that the rats were helping in response to others’ distress, rather than because they wanted company, Mason says. Rats that had previously been immersed learned how to save their cagemates much more quickly than those who had never been soaked, suggesting that empathy drove their behavior, she adds. “Not only does the rat recognize distress, but he is even more moved to act because he remembers being in that situation.”
People differ from rats in many ways, but the study supports a growing body of evidence that there’s an evolutionary basis for helpful behavior, independent of culture or upbringing, . “Humans are not helping purely because mom taught us to help,” she says. “In part—and to what degree remains to be seen—we help because it’s in our biology.” says the key researcher.
Suggesting...

I would agree a possible reason was that the rat had a trigger mechanism built into its design, so it instinctively responded, or that response became a habit based on experience. Survival. What makes that good or bad?

Yes, humans learn that some things hurt us, and we don't like experiencing hurt. Thus we avoid those things. Are you saying that what is 'good' and 'right' is based on behaviour?
#741
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
Sure? My point about Christianity and morality was clearly about moral nihilism. 
Just so we're clear, "moral nihilism" =/= "subjective morality"
#742
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I am asking you to present what you think is necessary for objective moral values.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
#743
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The study is implying what you're saying is moral behavior (reducing distress in our own species) is not in any way uniquely human, and it's not even the only study to demonstrate what we'd consider' morals' in animals. If it is not uniquely human, and rats don't give  a fig about Jesus or Vishnu, then morality is not contingent on any god. 
#744
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I would agree a possible reason was that the HUMAN had a trigger mechanism built into its design, so it instinctively responded, or that response became a habit based on experience. Survival.
Topic's author
#745
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I've learned from the dictionary that morality is a framework of social edicts based on fundamental principles.
Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?

And directly related to this, I discovered that principles must be true. And following only the dictionary definitions again, I discovered that truth requires facts. Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts.
I agree. Now, who sets these moral facts in motion? It must be a necessary being. Morality is a mindful thing. 

And I've been searching ever since then, trying to get someone to tell me exactly which facts "morality" is supposedly based on. Apparently nobody knows.
I gave you a reference to the Ten Commandments when you asked before for a chart. I spoke of how many of those principles make up moral laws in most countries. 

Not only this, I have offered to give you the reasons why the biblical God is reasonable to believe, whereas other belief systems are not. I can argue from the pages of the Bible in correspondence with other historical writings why what it says concerning prophecy is reasonable to believe, more reasonable than rejecting it. If that is the case with prophecy, then why not with other aspects of the word, such as it being a revelation from God. I have also argued with you that you can't make sense of morality without first presupposing a necessary being. I argue that being can only be the biblical God, not your god. Now, if you want to get into this last point/argument more, then reveal what your god is like and how you know this. What is the written record you point to, or do you have another way of confirming God is your god?  
#746
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?
THE BIBLE DOESN'T SOLVE THIS "PROBLEM".

IF TWO PEOPLE THINK THE BIBLE SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIM, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO IS "CORRECT"?
#747
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts.
I agree. Now, who sets these moral facts in motion? It must be a necessary being. Morality is a mindful thing. 
Nobody "sets facts".

FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.

This means they are always VERIFIABLE.

No "appeal to authority" needed.
#748
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I gave you a reference to the Ten Commandments when you asked before for a chart.
#1, the "commandments" are not FACTS.  The "commandments" are statements of DOGMA.

#2, even (IFF) we accepted the "commandments" as 100% "true" (AND) we tried to follow them to the letter (THEN) we still end up with a ridiculous number of loop-holes and unanswered (perhaps unanswerable) legal (and moral) questions
#749
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Not only this, I have offered to give you the reasons why the biblical God is reasonable to believe, whereas other belief systems are not.
Let's skip ahead.

GOD is a real-true-fact and The Bible is 100% real-true-fact, now what?

What does this mean to me in a real-life-practical-everyday scenario?

Don't worship other gods?  No problem.
Don't manufacture idols?  No problem.
Don't say "YHWH"?  No problem.
Don't work on Saturday?  Jesus canceled this one, we should actually make this "the 9 commandments".  No problem.
Honor thy parents?  No problem.
Don't murder?  No problem.
Don't adulterate?  No problem.
Don't steal?  No problem.
Don't perjure yourself?  No problem.
Don't desire stuff?  I already find it practical to focus on contentment, so, no problem.

What else?
Topic's author
#750
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Others are of the same opinion, and while that does not necessarily make it so, it is a good indication. It is an observation. 
Millions  of  "others," ie  Muslims  are of the opinion that Jesus was not the "son of god"  and " are of the opinion " that he was just a mere mouth-piece.  The Mandaean sect "are of the opinion"  that John the Baptist was the greater of the two between Jesus and John.  So I wouldn't let a few   bible ignorant  scroats  convince you that your own opinion about me is correct.
Again, this is an appeal or argument to popularity. Just because millions think that way does not necessarily make it so. Thus, on the evidence, the Bible, as well as other historical sources, it is reasonable to believe Jesus existed, more reasonable than denying this. Next, on the biblical testimony, it is reasonable to believe He is the God spoken of in Scripture, who took on humanity. I can give you hundreds of examples that teach this biblical truth. 

Compare the evidence for Jesus as greater with that of John the Baptist as greater. You choose an obscure, little known sect as the standard. 

Next, your bias once again comes clearly into the picture, as I underlined. Your immediate default position is that it is they who are wrong, not you. 

How many fkn TIMES!!!!!? I don't "hate"  Christians .
Again, a rather aggressive or hostile reply. 

Emphasis,It is to emphasise!  Because I am sick  of having to repeat my stance  on almost every fkn thread !!!!  Take that however you like. 
Again, the bolden-faced text suggests anger, and the tone (derogatory words and belittlement) from post after post conveys as much also. People often use such hostility to shut down discussion or intimidate. 


In fact, I only recall ever hating one person that I knew personally, in the whole of my life. It is the scriptures that I have a problem with. My threads are all to do with the scriptures. And I have more threads to create highlighting the many problems that arise from the bibles contradictory nature and ambiguity.  Your own faith and belief is all irrelevant to me. I don't care about your personal beliefs or  that you have a faith. It is what Christians have faith in  (the scriptures) that concerns me.


You hate Christianity, you hate Christ. You are against the Scriptures. Your posts show an animus. Jesus likened anger to hatred, even murder.  

See again, you are telling me what it is I hate. You really are right up your own arse arn't you?   You are no better than the Pastor , Chaplin and Lawyer #58
Your words demonstrate it in your countless threads. You insult, you slur, you degrade and belittle, you make moral judgments. When someone objects to you, they are wrong. Just pointing it out. After all, I have a right to express myself and my point of view too. 

Jesus likened anger to hatred, even murder.  
Something he'd know all about wouldn't he?  He's murdered enough men women and children hasn't he.
How can God murder? He is the creator of all life. Does He not have a right to do with it as He wishes? He made it known that there is a penalty for wrongful action, death to Him (i.e., separation from His presence). And He will never take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, in His presence. 

He gave humanity (in Adam, the federal head since he was created the first human being) the choice of everlasting life and the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam took of the tree of knowledge (which God told him not to do), Adam would know evil. Adam chose to eat it. Adam died that day to the close spiritual relationship with God. Since humans were now deciding for themselves what is good and bad (Moral relativism), God barred the man and woman from the Garden and prevented them from eating of the tree and living forever. He also provided a means by which humanity could again approach Him, His Son. He made this known by appointing a particular nation to witness to humanity this good news. They would carry the lineage of the Messiah, the Saviour. So God had a plan from before the world's foundation, the universe, to reconcile humanity to Himself. The Good News points to the solution - Jesus Christ. 

He also made known to humanity that the soul that sins would die. He has the right, as the sovereign Lord, to punish sinful or wrongful actions. Death is the result, separation from Him. He also instituted physical death, which means that each human being only has so long to live on this earth, then comes judgment for our moral wrongs. So, He is not an unjust Judge in that He brushes wrong under the proverbial rug but addresses it. Therefore, justice is done.

Now you, as a finite human being, do not always see justice in this world. You make a big fuss over God's moral decrees, all the while being guilty of falling short of His standards. First, give me the standard by which you can pronounce God unjust. Do you think you know better than God? It seems that you use the standard He provided for humanity to also judge Him. Why would the Creator need to conform to a human standard? He can't covet; everything is His. He can't steal; He owns it all. He does not lie because He is pure. He owes no one an explanation for what He does, yet He never does anything wrong for that is against His nature. He cannot commit adultery, for there is nothing greater than His that He should worship or stray from. He can't murder, for we are His creation, and He has a right to do with it as He chooses. He is just and fair, and He punishes wrong by separating or removing evil from His pure and holy presence. He rewards the innocent. 


I don't know you personally to care about you. Just as I don't know you to "hate you". You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that alone wouldn't convince me that the scriptures are true and flawless. 
You hate what I stand for and believe in. You constantly attack it and mock it and put it down. 

NO. I constantly scrutinize the scriptures and question them. You just don't like it and I don't care.
There is a difference between criticizing and teaching what is wrong and getting it wrong. 

Your justification displays several eisegetical and inferential errors on the myriad of threads that would require a very detailed and time-consuming rebuttal. 

 Indeed.  Hence you are simply left with your unfounded opinion. AND you are more than welcome to it.
Yes, indeed! What I am left with, in your critique, is logically flawed. You read into rather than take out of the author's intended meaning. Anyone can do that. It takes talent to find out what the author means. Anyone can twist Scripture by collapsing context, adding to it things it does not say.