/lit/ - Literature

>>16407102
You just proved that you're a sophist lmao

>>16353277
>Sex for the feels
Lol, you mean while wearing a plastic bag. You're not a lover, just an under-qualified OBGYN, I'm sure you are as satisfying as one.

>>16308737
You would call me deceitful, but you are a hypocrite; your very language is designed to obfuscate and undermine any real engagement with your ideas, it sounds like PoMo, but I'll give common sense a try.

It doesn't follow at all that an amoral God approves of all morals any more if follows that he disapproves of all morals. Such things as approval and disapproval hide value-judgements that an absolute being could not possibly share in.

Objectivity isn't truth, truth is being objective. Knowledge is power, so might makes right. You sound like some next-level esoteric SJW when you talk about truth.

Finally you're just strawmanning like a baby; I never said that God was morally relativistic, but you took my words and flipped them on their head to make it seem like I had said the opposite of what I did.

In short, if I am deceitful, you are on another level of deceit that makes me look amateurish.