Is the god of the bible a moral being? [Spirituality & Religion]

I find the god in the Bible to be equivalent to a temper tantrum throwing toddler not worthy of recognition

(@ Qwerty14)
The Roman Catholic Church is by far the largest and wealthiest of all the so-called “Christian Denominations.” It has consistently claimed to be the only true Church – the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. In addition, especially in this generation, it has embellished its image and attracted and held members by the claim that it is the one Church which has never changed, All of these claims are false. However, in recent years, the Roman Catholic Church has done a complete about-face, actually boasting of the many changes it has instituted to meet the changing needs of Catholics and non-Catholics alike in this modern age.

Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true Church? Are its past and present teachings and practices Scriptural? How has the Roman Catholic Church changed through the centuries? How much has it changed in our lifetime? Have these changes been basic or superficial? Where is the Roman Catholic Church headed?

The purpose of this article is to turn the spotlight of truth upon Roman Catholicism both as to its past history and present teachings. Our sincere desire is to be of help to Catholics, many of whom are well aware that, in recent years, their church has been Instituting many changes, most of which have left them confused, uncertain, and deeply troubled. For the first time in their lives, many Catholics are raising serious questions about their Church, its leaders, its teachings and its practices. They now realize that their church is not united but divided over issues such as birth control, abortion, divorce, celibacy for priests, women clergy, gay clergy, Papal infallibility, prayer, worship, music, purgatory, confession and even the meaning of the Mass. The moral degeneracy and financial scandals which have rocked the Charismatic movement have also been exposed in the Roman Catholic Church, all the way from the Vatican to the local parish. Confusion reigns supreme and Catholics who take their religion seriously don’t know which way to turn.

A source of further confusion for many is the fact that for centuries Roman Catholics were taught that all those outside its membership were heretics to be shunned, persecuted or even killed. It was not until the middle of this century that the Roman Catholic Church modified and softened its stand by first calling non-Catholics, “separated brethren.” More recently, even that negative connotation has been eliminated so that today, Catholics are to consider “all Christians” to be “brothers and sisters in Christ.”

However, these changed outward attitudes on the part of Roman Catholics toward non-Catholics, and their increasing usage of evangelical terminology, has unfortunately resulted in many evangelicals mistakenly believing that the basic false doctrines and heresies of Romanism have changed, something that simply is not true. Thus, both Catholics and non-Catholics alike should take a fresh look at Biblical, historical and current look at this largest supposedly Christian denomination in the world. If it is the one true Church as it claims to be, then every believer in Christ should become a part of it. But, if it is and always has been a false church, then all who truly believe the Bible and trust Jesus Christ as Saviour will separate from it, warn about it, and urge others to do likewise.

Through our extensive radio and literature ministries, it has been a great blessing to hear from many former Roman Catholics who have been delivered from the bondage of the false doctrines of Romanism; who have experienced the new birth by faith in Jesus Christ alone; and who are doing their best to reach their Catholic loved ones and friends with the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time, it has been a real heartache to realize that so many non Roman Catholics who profess to know Christ as Saviour, have been deceived by the new attitudes and vocabulary of Catholicism so that the Roman Catholic Church is now being accepted by many evangelicals as a sister church with only minor differences rather than the false church which it actually is.

The Truth About the Roman Catholic Church is that it always has been and continues to be a false church. Those Biblical doctrines it professes to believe and teach are vitiated by Roman Catholic dogma based upon tradition which contradicts God’s holy, infallible Word, the Bible. Error is never more deceptive than when it is presented with a veneer of truth. Throughout its entire history, Roman Catholic leaders fit the description of the false teachers who God warned in advance would come on the scene in the last days deceiving many by their “feigned’ (pretended or hypocritical) words their “great swelling words of vanity, ” as described in 1 Peter 2:1-3, 18, 19,

Before examining and refuting some of the well known false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, it is essential to understand that two basic false teachings of Roman Catholicism (even apart from its many other errors), clearly classify it as a religious cult rather than a true church. These two basic errors are:

Firstly, Roman Catholicism, although teaching that the Bible is the Word of God, adds the spurious apocryphal books to the Scriptures, and also elevates church tradition and the edicts of popes and councils (the words of men), to the same or an even greater level of authority than the Word of God. This amounts to adding to the Word of God, thereby placing Roman Catholicism under God’s curse. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19.

Secondly, Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God’s curse. Gal. 1:6-10.

Thus, by Scriptural standards, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which can only expect God’s judgment, not a true church which can claim God’s blessing. No amount of outward change should be permitted to obscure this fact.

As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of Christ’s deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: “.. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. ” Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter’s own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 as “a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ….’ History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.

Furthermore, the long-held claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only church which never changed is not supported by church history not even Roman Catholic history. How sad to realize that this false claim influenced so many to join or to stay in this false church which actually is the product of centuries of changes. Most of these changes came as a result of yielding to heathen customs and practices which were subsequently incorporated into Roman Catholic teachings and worship. The following is a partial list of heathen, unscriptural practices which became a part of Roman Catholic dogma over a period of seventeen centuries. Some of the dates given are approximate. In many cases, these heresies were even debated for years before being given the status of required beliefs:

300 AD Prayers for the dead
300 AD Making the sign of the cross
375 AD Veneration of angels & dead saints
375 AD Use of images in worship
394 AD The Mass as a daily celebration
431 AD Exaltation of Mary with term “Mother of God” applied at Council of Ephesus
526 AD Extreme Unction (Last Rites)
593 AD Doctrine of Purgatory – Gregory
600 AD Prayers to Mary & dead saints
786 AD Worship of cross, images & relics
995 AD Canonization of dead saints
1079 AD Celibacy of priesthood
1090 AD The Rosary
1190 AD Indulgences
1215 AD Transubstantiation – Innocent III
1215 AD Auricular Confession of sins to a priest
1220 AD Adoration of the wafer (Host)
1414 AD Cup forbidden to the people at communion
1439 AD Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma
1439 AD The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed
1545 AD Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent
1546 AD Apocryphal books added to Bible
1854 AD Immaculate Conception of Mary
1870 AD Infallibility of pope in matters of faith and morals claimed by Vatican Council
1950 AD Assumption of Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven after her death)
1965 AD Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church

Although some of the preceding Roman Catholic heresies are now being questioned by many, both inside and outside the church, none have been officially repudiated and all continue to be practiced by millions of Catholics around the world. The urgent need today is for Roman Catholics; yes, and all who claim to be Christians, to examine their own beliefs and the teachings of their churches by the only sure standard – the Bible. Whatever contradicts, adds to or subtracts from the sixty-six books of the Old and the New Testaments, is error no matter how many may cling to it.

Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Note carefully the following warnings given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the religious leaders of His day concerning vain worship, vain tradition and vain repetitions. All of these are particularly applicable to Roman Catholicism today. Vain worship: In Matthew 15:8-9, Jesus said, ‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the command men of men.” All worship is indeed vain when it is based upon the commandments of men rather than the Word of God. Vain tradition: In Matthew 15:6b, Jesus said, ‘Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. ”

[Note: Valid tradition is based upon Scripture and confirms it. Vain tradition is based upon man’s teachings and violates it. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is consistently elevated above the Scripture which results in vain worship (no matter how sincere) and makes the commandment of God of no effect – a very serious matter.]

Vain Repetition: In Matthew 6:7, Jesus said, “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” A basic part of Roman Catholic worship is the frequent repetition of The Rosary whose origin is clearly tied to heathen religions such as Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism. Roman Catholics should listen to the words of Christ forbidding vain repetitions, rather than using the vain repetitions of Catholicism.

During the past forty years, at least three important trends in the Roman Catholic Church are clearly observable. These are: (1) A greater emphasis upon the place of Mary. (2) A major emphasis upon ecumenical activities with a view to seeking the full visible unity of all religions. (3) The acceptance of the so-called Charismatic renewal within the Church with new emphasis upon the claimed “ministry of the Holy Spirit.” There is every reason to believe that all of these major trends will continue and increase; and, all of them are very deceptive, very dangerous, very unscriptural.

The place accorded Mary in the Roman Catholic Church is not Scriptural nor is it new, but it cannot be denied that, during the last one hundred years, veneration of Mary has dramatically increased, Note in the historical chart given earlier in this article that the exaltation of Mary and the term, Mother of God, became official Catholic dogma in 431 A.D.). with prayers to her proclaimed in 600 A.D. But, note also that the “Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mat)@” was not proclaimed until 1854; her “Assumption” not until 1950; and her title “Mother of the Church” not until as recently as 1965.

Some Roman Catholic observers believe it may not be much longer until Mary is officially proclaimed “Co-redemptrix with Christ.” In fact, the premier issue of a new Roman Catholic publication, Catholic Heritage (Vol. 1, No. 1, Sept-Oct 1991) has the front page title: “Mary, Mother of the Church,” and, in a Question and Answer column, the question is asked, “At the foot of the cross, Mary shared in the mystery of the passion. True or False? Answer: True. Mary united her sorrows to those of hey Son. The sorrowful and immaculate heart of Mary bled with her Son for all of mankind. For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Co-redemptrix.”

All of the popes during the past thirty years have done their part to increase the influence of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church based completely on tradition rather than upon the Bible. In the August 28, 1975 issue of the official Vaticannewspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, Pope Paul VI, speaking of the ceremony celebrated the day before in St. Peter’s in honor of the Madonna at the Feast of the Assumption of Mary said, “Her venerated image, known as Salus Populi Romani’ was carried in procession from St. Mary Major’s as part of the Holy Year ceremonies, so that the overflow crowd of pilgrims, coming from all parts of the world, could see it and thus increase their devotion to her. In this way we should all be reminded of the meaning and practice of the cult of Mary, inseparable from the unique and central cult of Christ …Let us pray to her with humble, trusting and childlike faith.”

Did you know that the present pope, John Paul II, has dedicated himself completely to Mary? In 1985, during his visit to Vancouver, B.C., the special souvenir edition of B. C. Catholic carried a full I page color photo of the pope under the caption, Totus Tuus which, in Latin, means” all yours. “The following explanation was given, “When Karol Wojtyla was consecrated bishop of Cracow by Pius XII in 1958 he took, ‘Totus Tuus’ (all yours) as his motto, thus presenting himself to Mary. In his first Urbi et Orbi message immediately after being elected pope he said, “At this difficult hour, full of fear, we must turn our thoughts with filial devotion to the Virgin Mary who always lives in the midst of Christ and exists as his mother. We must repeat the words, Totus Tuus which 20 years ago were inscribed into our heart and soul.”‘

Pope John Paul II has visited many of the major Shrines to Mary. He attributed his escape from death at the hands of a would-be assassin and the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe to the intervention of Mary. Millions of Catholics are making pilgrimages to the various Marian shrines, seeking and often claiming miracles of healing and answers to their prayers to Mary. New apparitions of Mary and special messages from her are being claimed in various parts of the world. Yet, there is absolutely no Scriptural foundation for any of these beliefs or practices. Mary was indeed a virgin (pure sexually) so that she could fulfill the Old Testament prophecy that Christ would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14). She was a godly woman, but not sinless. As with all true believers in Christ, when Mary died, her soul and spirit went to heaven, but her body awaits the resurrection; she did not bodily ascend to heaven as did Jesus Christ. Nothing in Scripture indicates that prayers were ever offered to Mary nor that she was worshipped by anyone. Most of Roman Catholic teaching concerning Mary is based entirely on human tradition and contradicts the Bible, the Word of God.

The present ecumenical emphasis and activities of the Roman Catholic Church are also of recent origin. When Vatican Council I was held in 18691870, the invitation of the pope to the Orthodox Churches to participate was refused; and, his public appeal to “Protestants and all non-Catholics” to return to the only true fold” received resentful refusals. However, in the intervening years it became increasingly obvious to the Roman Catholic hierarchy that their church needed some serious updating, particularly with regard to relationships with other churches. In 1960, Pope John XXIII established the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity; and, in 1962, he convoked Vatican Council II which he called “An ecumenical council for the universal church.”

Less than a year later, Pope John XXIII died, but his successor, Pope Paul VI, who had attended four sessions of Vatican 11 before becoming pope, did everything possible to continue and expand the ecumenical emphasis. His expressed position was that the Roman Catholic Church could best demonstrate the validity of its teaching, not by condemnation or severity, but with the “medicine of mercy.” His emphasis was upon “working for the full visible unity in truth among all Christians” and that this unity should extend also to non-Christians. This new approach of Vatican 11 was successful in gaining the co-operation of the major Orthodox Church bodies as well as 38 delegated observers from almost all the major Protestant denominations. Of course, Pope John Paul 11 has expanded the ecumenical emphasis in the Roman Catholic Church to unprecedented heights. While this has received high praise from religious leaders and denominations, the kind of unity sought by the Roman Catholic Church is contrary to the Bible. All unity purchased at the expense of doctrinal purity is satanic and deceptive. 2 Cor. 6:14-18, Eph. 5:11, 2 Tim. 3:1-17; 4:1-8. All who join hands in ecumenical fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel are under God’s curse. Gal. 1:6-10.

Palo Mayombe

Palo Mayombe is the dark side of Santeria and is said to be the world’s most powerful and feared form of black magic. The difference between Palo Mayombe and Santeria is those who practice the religion of Santeria profess to use the forces of light to achieve their goals and magic spells, while the members of Palo Mayombe use the forces of darkness. Many members of Santeria avoid being associated with Palo Mayombe. Ecumenical Prayer Meeting - No - Palo Mayombe Sm 1Palo Mayombe has a very long history, originating in the African Congo and transported to the Caribbean during the Spanish slave trade to Cuba and Puerto Rico in the 1500s. The influence of Palo Mayombe can be found in Central America, Brazil and Mexico. In Brazil it is known as Quimbanda, a mixture of traditional Congo, and is indigenous in India and Latin American spiritualism It has its own priesthood and set of rules and regulations which will vary according to the Palo Mayombe house to which a practising individual – called a Palero – has been initiated into. It is a very strong and powerful form of black magic.

Ecumenical Prayer Meeting - No - Palo Mayombe Sm 2

The Roman Catholic Church was infiltrated by the false teachings and unscriptural practices of the Charismatic Movement in the early 1960’s. Its influence within Roman Catholicism is growing rapidly. As always, the devil has a very clever way of compounding error while giving the results a more respectable appearance. Space limitations prevent a more comprehensive consideration of its past and present approaches but we have prepared other articles providing important details to all who might be interested in knowing why the Charismatic Movement and its teachings are so deceptive and dangerous. Once this movement became entrenched in the Roman Catholic Church, RCC leaders were quick to see that it would be t

These are Gods words

ROMANS 9:6-26

[b]God’s Sovereign Choice

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,


“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:


“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i]


[/b]

That god does a lot of weird shit.

What if that baby is Hitler? Would you kill him knowing it would save millions?

The Bible says killing anyone is wrong yet 1/4 is about killing. The Bible does say he creates both good and evil. Thus making him God of truly everything. I believe it is the KJV in particular that uses the phrase "evil".
It really needs to be understood from the culture at the time. The ancient Jews didn't have a separate God of evil. God was the creator and created everything. Evil was simply his face of wrath. But that is hard for people to deal with. Humans don't like good and evil mixed in the same being. So the angel of the lord of Satan/death being one eventually took on a greater and greater share of the evil leaving God looking sparkling clean. Until eventually two opposing beings were created and God became all good.
There is a book called The Birth of Satan by Gregory Wray and T.J. Mobley that talks about just this thing. It is non secular and uses the Bible as its main source but analyzes the rise of Satan in the scriptures.
So is God immoral? Originally yes. But he was also master of all and there was no back talking or you'd get smiteed.

Not moral at all.

[quote]
Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.[/quote]

The God, or perhaps Gods even, of the Bible is a character in books written by men. Written by men, written with the wisdom of men, and so also the foolishness of men. God is a character that is just like men, in many ways created in the image of men, God has men's wisdom and God has men's foolishness.

Such false modesty to say what you wrote was divinely inspired. Such false modesty to say what you wrote is the voice of God, when you are but a human being. Such false modesty also to believe what these authors wrote. Why is this often overlooked, that the Bible was written by Men. Mortal men, with questionable intentions, with questionable wisdom, with men's foolishness just like any other men! Also edited by Men, where some books were accepted, some weren't, and different versions of this exist. All done by Men!

The people who unquestioningly believe what they believe from these books, books written by men, books with the wisdom of men and the foolishness of men, are but the Idolaters of Men!

These books were written by men, yet you have made idols of them!

Isn't it better to establish a bigger idea of what morality is?
For everyone that doesn't believe morality is set in stone (me included) then this argument becomes seriously problematic. If you also go from the idea that God is the source of morality (which is ussually the case in religion) then it's God which decides what is Moral and what is immoral.

And to go even further, even in "normative" morality (which most non-religion people use to form senses of morality) there is always the problematic nature of the "exception" to the norm. Which can only be absolved by God (or in pre-liberal tradition: the sovereign). As Carl Schmitt said in his book on political theology: The sovereign decides what is the exception. So in those troubled moments in time, God (or the sovereign) is the entity that decides how to deal with the problems that occur when you apply normativity. Hence God always gets a clean pass. (So does the sovereign)

This btw was also an argument during the "Neuremburg Trials" after the holocaust. That Germans enforcing the will of the sovereign (Hitler and the NAZI-party) did nothing wrong. Because they are the sovereign. The allies went against this by using the idea of "universal human rights", which according to the liberal view, constrain all sovereigns in their use of power because they are not permitted to sin again these universal rules (or natural rights). But the allies are an "outside force" , with another vieuw on "reality" that judged from outside the NAZI-mindset. Inside the NAZI-mindset nothing was wrong and they were acting in a moral way because they applied the will of the sovereign which is the source of morality in their thinking.

So if you pass judgement onto God, then at least put the words "from my perspective", because inside the mindset of the world where in this God resides, it's perfectly rational for God to do these things and still be moral.

To leave on a personal note... I think the God of the Christian bible has some serious problems when it comes to morality used in the "west". If you believe in englightenment values and in the universal laws of man, then God is guilty for a lot of stuff and should at the bare minimum be put forth for crimes against humanity. You can't believe in the universal laws of man AND believe God is moral.

The Bible is rather clear that God is the creator and sustainer of all life. Those who reject God are already dead. They are rejecting the giver of life. He sustains their body in hope that they will, in their own will, choose to repent and turn to Him for a life with Him. But, if people choose to reject life then He will give to them what they wished for. Separation from God will be separation from life.

I also agree that God is immoral. What type of monster gives children cancer. Seriously WTF God.

The whole world was filled with violence and demons having sex with women creating nephilem or violent giants. Those babies would grow up to be wicked anyways God had to cleanse the earth

This syllogistic deduction rings true and sequitur as one segues reasonably into the other. In addition other observations of His behavior also follow this pattern as when He permits Joshua and his army to burn down the entire city of Jericho and everything/everyone in it. Then there's Sodom and Gomorrah. These cities must have certainly had babies in them.

However, consider that if the God of the Bible is truly a God of Love, a God of Peace, a God of Forgiveness and a God of Wisdom that we are led to believe then it stands to reason that He would not act in hypocritical and capricious ways changing His mind at the drop of a godly hat. You would expect that He would behave in consistent ways as a Supreme Being.

Therefore I propose that the God of the Bible and the God\Supreme Being of the Universe are two different things yielding two different sets of expectations. One more mythical making sense when conveniently necessary while the other more self-explanatory making increasing sense logically. It then follows that the Supreme Being would supersede the deified narrative presented in the Bible. How's that for syllogism?

The fact that humankind has been able to,imagine such a vengeful being is quite unnerving

Matthew 10:34-38 New International Version (NIV)
[quote]
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
[/quote]

Look closely upon those words. Those are not a perfect being's wisdom. It is the Foolishness of Men.

Why do we let men exuding in their false modesty, exuding in their foolishness, influence our relationships? Tell me you Idolaters of Men who wrote these books you never deeply questioned, tell me why do you let mere mortal men exuding in their foolishness set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law? You hear about this in your churches, in visiting your Christian friends, in Christians gossiping about their non-Christian family members and perhaps you've experienced it first hand.

If there is love between you and another, why let these foolishness set you against one another? With all things being equal, anyone who sets you against your father is not worthy of you; anyone who sets you against your son is not worthy of you; anyone who sets you against your mother is not worthy of you; anyone who sets you against your daughter is not worthy of you. Anyone who sets You against your Love one is not worthy of You.

Anyone who proclaims to be God, or the voice of God sets about to fool you and is not worthy of you. Anyone who sets you against your better judgement is not worthy of you.

As I've said before, you've made Idols of these men, and that you've Idolozed them so much is a testament of your unquestioning them, to the point that you've ruined relations, peace and love for them.

[image deleted]

Yahweh created morality.

[b]Syllogism time:[/b]

Mankind does not understand or can explain the supernatural.

God is supernatural.

Mankind can not understand or can explain God.

Any god that kills a human is not worthy of roraise or recognition

I’m not religious so I couldn’t say. But in theory, no he’s not. As he seems vengeful. I mean what god would ask a parent to kill his child for him as a test?

morality is ever changing throughout society and generations.

Absolute moral authority

What is a dead baby to god when he can bring life to that baby later?

Can you bring back the dead? Then who are you to judge?

This whole post is not moral!

Seriously ?

Valid

Tbh Old Testament God had no chill at all

This is too deep for me.

😂 I love this

God is holy ,He can not look at sin,but God spared the baby's lives up in heaven🌹

If he is then Hitler was a saint

It's all for the promised land according to a Christian friend of mine.

God gives, God takes, Blessed be the name of the Lord!