Matthew Le God

I'm intruiged as to what excuse wriggling they could use. Put yourself in their position and how would you justify thinking a slavery endorsing god remains 100% kind and loving.

I refer you to my post above this one. You have taken my moron comment out of context, as it was used for one specific example.

This discussion today about my use of 'moronic' was solely about believing two views were compatible. Not wider points on religion. The conflicting statements.. 1) 100% kind and loving 2) Slave endoring and enabling How can someone justify owning another human and think it would reduce the 100% kind and loving description to something below 100%?

In all these years you haven't got close to laying a hit on me and you forget/distort/twist/lie about and re-run all you misses like a delusional Darth Vader! 😉

Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is not arrogant. It is what being rational is. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Faith is not a reliable path to truth. You can believe contradictory positions on faith.

Why can you not recognise kind and loving is incompatible with owning another human and them not being free? The excuse making required to dispute it would be quite something! There is a clear conflict between the two statements.

No he doesn't. He can't form rebuttals so resorts to primary school playground petty personal insults.

🙄 You aren't following the context of that post and what it was replying to at all.

How can any sane person not see 100% kind and loving is not compatible with endorsing slavery? Do you think owning another person is kind and loving?

I should have used Stalin, Pol Pot or some other nightmarish dictator who demands constant worship and fear to compare God with! 😉

Not when it is clear cut. - 100% kind and loving - Slave endorsing in Exodus 21 There is no wiggle room for excuses if you think there is no conflict or contradiction between the two. It is clearly moronic to think endorsing slavery doesn't make a difference to being 100% kind and loving.

So what? The burden of proof is on a person making a claim. I was not making a claim... he was.

If they believe a 100% kind and loving god is compatible and not a contraction with the slavery endorsing God of Exodus 21... then yes they morons.

The switch was used to point out that it is not arrogant. Not sure how you struggle grasp that. 100% kind and loving and endorsing slavery is incompatible. It is incompatible for God like it is incompatible for Hitler or anyone else. So to make excuses to think they are compatible ideas is moronic. To point that out is not arrogant.

I'd love to know what evidence that claim of certainty is based on. You have not proven he exists, let alone for 100% what his view on a topic is!

It is an argument that holds together and you haven't explained why it doesn't.

You still haven't grasped how one word fundamentally can change a question. Plus, I've pointed out to Raging Bull the massive fundamental flaws in his point.

Wow, just wow. Excuse making and mental gymnastics at its worst! You really have been brainwashed! Were those people owned by another person? Yes Does Exodus give instructions how slaves and the children of slaves can be inherited by your own choldren Were they free to leave? No Were some of them forced to work to pay off debts? Yes Does Exodus give instructions on how you can punish your slaves? That equals slavery being endorsed and enabled by the character of God in that old horrific book.

No it isn't. - God is 100% kind and loving - God word for word outlines who you can own as a slaves, how you punish them and how you can trade them To deny a conflict between the two is moronic. Endorsing and enabling slavery is moronic. Let us try it again but change one word... - Hitler is 100% kind and loving - Hitler word for word outlines who you can own as a slaves, how you punish them and how you can trade them To deny a conflict between the two is moronic Would you think it arrogant to think people who think Hitler was 100% kind and loving and set rules for slave labour were morons?

Queen

A camel on the pitch?

It is not a ridiculous claim to say how even changing one word in a question to another completely changes the requirements of the answer.

Anyone who thinks a 100% kind and loving God would endorse slavery as Exodus clearly does is a moron. There is no mental gymnastics or excuse making possible that can fix the issue. There is a clear conflict between them that can not be fixed. Kind and loving to all cannot work with a god who outlines step by step how you can own another human, sell them, punish them etc.

I know you said that. My point remains valid.

🙄 Different wording can make a huge difference to question. One word changed in the question can require an entirely different answer.