Excellent post! We've managed to hold off our own "guv wankers" this time, but our day is coming I fear.

I don't understand what this means: "it is important not to get morality - right and wrong - mixed up with the law"

Are you saying immoral laws are not a big deal? If we pass a law tomorrow, which requires the extermination of the mentally ill, wouldn't you object on moral grounds?

"When you state what you've just stated you're not just saying how you feel you're making a CLAIM youre saying what you say is true therefore what the woman says is false ... so you're right and that's that ?"

What? Sorry I'm not following. As they say in Japan, mo ichido, kudasai.

"A pregnant woman is not MORALLY obliged to carry a pregnancy to term ,there is no moral requirement for her to allow the foetus to use her body in order to survive ."

Because according to you, using a body is much more worse than killing a body? Do you also think there's no moral requirement for the mother to care for the child after it's born? Can she just leave it in a dumpster - free from any moral/legal judgement? If not, then why not?

"If she aborts she does not violate the fetus's right to life , she deprives it of sustenance provided by here over which it does not have a RIGHT ."

Again, that argument could easily be extended to children already born. What would you say to someone who no longer wants to provide sustenance to their 6 month old baby? Obviously, you'll want to try to argue that the child only has value after they're born, to which I would say - why?

If you don't believe the value of human life is innate, then what magical transformation occurs within the vaginal canal, which bestows this value as the child is born? Is it just the independence from the mother's physical body? Newborns are hardly independent creatures though - even after they're born - so I'd like to hear your distinction from a baby in the womb to a baby swaddled in a blanket.

Well if they do realize it's a human life, then clearly they know they're taking it, correct? In that case, it's murder - unless of course they can prove the baby deserved it.

And if they don't realize it then it's still murder, because the young life is still human - regardless of the mother's inability to comprehend simply biology.

If it seems like I'm painting with a broad brush here, that's because I see only two possibilities: human or inhuman, moral or immoral, life or death. I don't see a middle option at all. Plus, I'm fairly certain, deep down, all know it's a human life. Some just try very, very hard, to convince themselves otherwise.

And to the Nazi mind, Jews weren't human either. Thus, according to them, they weren't committing murder when they exterminated 6 million of them - but we all know that they were.

Well what kind of life do they think their fetus is then? Plant life perhaps? Sorry, but not realizing it's a human life (which biology can easily prove) is no excuse at all.

I wouldn't say that He does nothing. He gave His one and only Son as a ransom for us - that's certainly not nothing. And since God is the triune God, then it was actually God Himself who paid the price to close that gap between us (the gap that sin creates, which separates us from God).

I do get what you're saying though. I used to think that way too. But then I wondered where I got this notion of immorality in the first place. I used to be atheist, and I figured if atheism were really true, then there should be no morality at all - it would all just be biochemical reactions within our brains, which cause us to think something is moral or immoral. But really that wouldn't be true - things would just "be" the way they are. Your current sentiments though, along with mine long ago, betray that naturalistic idea entirely. For you to lament the treatment of sinners, or to call suffering "unfair", is actually a testimony against atheism.

If you really think it's unfair of God to condemn the unsaved to Hell, then by what moral authority do you do so?

Why? How? Don't make statements without explaining them.

Because an immoral God would need a moral authority higher than Himself for us to judge Him as being immoral in the first place. In other words, when we say someone is immoral, what we're really saying is that person is lacking morality. We do that by measuring them against an objective moral standard. Thus, to say God is immoral, you must first identify a moral standard that God can be subjected to - but if you were to do so, you would've identified something that is greater than God - and that's simply not logical. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, the concept of a supreme Creator demands there be nothing greater.

Who's to say there isn't a higher moral standard than God? If he's not omnibenevolent, then perhaps even I could be more loving than God.

I covered this a bit above already, but it bears repeating. If you could be more loving than God, then how do you measure that more part? Have you identified a moral standard that supercedes even that of the Creator's?

Nothing regarding God is objective.

Is that you're subjective opinion? If so, then could your subjective opinion be wrong?

I don't think you understand what objective means.

I understand the meaning, though the difference between objective and absolute can seem a bit subtle at first.

Objective truth: Murder is wrong.

Absolute truth: True is not False.

In the examples above, the objective truth can be violated, the absolute truth cannot. Objective morality exists independent of the person, whereas subjective morality does not. There's no such thing as absolute morality, since that would turn us all into robots - i.e. no free will.

"The point the atheists is trying to make is that God cannot be good to somebody who is burning in Hell with no way out, therefore he concludes that God is not good if Hell is real, and if Hell is not real there is no need to believe God is real."

Well those are all non sequiturs, stemming from a false premise. That is to say, the very reason someone "burns in Hell", is because God is just and righteous (i.e. "good"). If the non-believer thinks that concept is unfair (i.e. unjust), then I'd want to ask them by what moral authority do they measure the Creator's decisions in the first place?

I'm now beginning to wonder if you think that when I say God is omnibenevolent, that I'm one of those who believe God is always joyful, loving, never angry, etc.. Like a Ned Flanders type of Christian. If that's the case, then no, I don't think that at all. I know we're all deserving of Hell - right from birth - so it doesn't "smear" God's goodness at all when people go to Hell. Being "all good" is simply the absence of even the tiniest amount of evil. God cannot even look upon evil, so logically He must be omnibenevolent. That doesn't mean He hands out free cupcakes to everyone though.

That's a strawman you created. I've never stated that it's "not possible for God to be good if He punishes evil". Of course He remains good, regardless of whether He punishes evil or not. Remember, I'm the one who says God is omnibenevolent. You're the one who says God is less than omnibenevolent (i.e. a little bit evil).

"Until you plainly state that you agree with what Jesus said about Hell being eternal damnation of sinners..."

Yes, I plainly state that I agree w/ what Jesus said re: Hell and sinners. How could I disagree?

"If God allows them to be relieved, then their is no reason anybody show care what God thinks of their behavior...they would all be forgiven so who cares how they live or die? That is what the creator of this debate is saying, and you seem to be in agreement with Him. I sure am not on your side."

I think you have your debates confused here - because you're the creator of this debate. There's no forgiveness after death, but before death is another story entirely. We're surrounded by grace and mercy in this life, no matter how much of a wretch someone thinks they are - they can always be forgiven.