What he did provide is more of the same bluster. He had a lot of arguments from me to choose from, and didn't seem to engage any of them.
(Oh, and I didn't correct or change any spelling...or lack thereof.)
Hosea 13:16 for god agreeing with pregnant women having their stomachs ripped open, a moral being who is powerful enough to stop this ****, does unless of course said being agrees and hence they would be immoral.
you have failed to live up to demonstrating your god
Either your and kerrigan's argument from morailty is a red herring or its a god of the gaps argument.
that actually presents a logical argument that concludes god.
You were saying kerrigan destroyed me using the morality argument
For the record, my guess is disrespectful punk, but you can change that by actually addressing what I write.
Your god clearly agrees with it since he is all powerful and does nothing to stop what he knows will happen.
2) My last msg dealt specifically with this. My blogpost went into even more detail.
Namely, the other reason I call your statement about "God has zero problem" wrong is b/c, even if God did command ripping open pregnant women at one or more specific times in the past, that is not at all the same as saying God has ZERO problem with it. Since God has commanded not to murder and not to commit abortion to all people NOW, that means that God does have a problem with it, and one is greater than zero.
3) Are you 100% pro-life? If not, what problem specifically do you have with God's being pro-choice?
4) If you respond "but abortion is OK if the woman consents", one wonders how you could morally justify that statement, that consent renders something permissible, whatever the action. I might agree in certain cases (though not in the case of abortion; for one thing, the baby was never inquired of) but I don't see how your worldview can justify it.
Hosea 13:16 for god agreeing with pregnant women having their stomachs ripped open, a moral being who is powerful enough to stop this ****, does unless of course said being agrees and hence they would be immoral.1) Asserting a reason for morality does not make it so.
2) You'll recall that I gave you 3 points to make sure that your chosen biblical psg actually does teach what you say it teaches. Here they are:
a. I'd be interested in seeing what psgs you mention. Does the context make clear that GOD IS COMMANDING SUCH? Or is God telling people what is going to happen at the hands of evil men? From my doublecheck just now, it looks like the latter.
b. Even if you could find a psg where God specifically commands that pregnant women be ripped open, don't you remember that asserting a reason for morality does not make it so?
c. Also, if you could find a psg like that, you said "God has zero problem with it", which is entirely inaccurate. What about the more general commands to people not to commit murder? Even one counterexample disproves your statement that God has ZERO problem with it. It would demonstrate that He has a least one problem with it.
The verse says:
16Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.
So, the answer is FAIL. God didn't command it; He predicted it.
I take it from your fail that you cannot substantiate your point about God commanding ripping open pregnant women. Thanks for playing.
Finally, I missed where I ad hominem-ed you. Please quote me doing so. Thanks!