[Nathan Zachary]

"That's precisely why there is no absolute morality that can be derived from God--killing babies was okay with him in the past when he commanded his followers at the time to do it (1 Samuel 15:2-3), but he apparently changed his mind about it at some point."

Uh, no. You are completely out of context, and taking God out of His realm and placing him in your limited earthly-fleshy view.

You think earthly flesh is of any consequence to God? It isn't. The first thing one does when becoming a Christian does is become reborn, casting off the flesh. Understand the meaning of that.

God wouldn't "Kill" babies, he would take his creation out of harms way. You just can't understand how he can do that, because you think the flesh is all there is to you. Even your brain is an organ, it isn't the origin of your being, your consciousness if understand what I'm saying.

[Two Ravens]

Uh, no. You are completely out of context, and taking God out of His realm and placing him in your limited earthly-fleshy view.

The entire point of the published article that started this thread was that God is the only basis for "rational, logical, and consistent reasons for morality", and this latest statement of your explicitly concedes that such is not the case. You're tossing reason right out the window as a "limited earthy-fleshy view"

It's great that you have so readily admitted to that, since reason, logic and consistency ultimately have nothing to do with the views held by theists.