Like it or not, God is immoral.

[genkaus]

Again, God is not the source of morality. God is the source of true Righteousness. Morlity is man's attempt at said Righteousness. That makes God's express will absolute and unchanging, and yet allows man to change his understanding of 'morality' to fit whatever culture or age he lives in. In short morality' is the sin man has found acceptable to live with while True Godly righteousness is the absence of sin.

Right on the cue, ladies and gentlemen. Give this guy a big hand.

http://You predict that an evasion is coming along and there it comes. Even his evasions are getting predictable.

Do you have book chapter and verse

Yes. It's called a dictionary. Look it up.

or are you simply trying to force a modern understanding of 'righteousness' onto the Hebrew word: tsĕdaqah which tells us in this context that Righteousness/tsĕdaqah
is an attribute of God? Or the greek word: dikaiosynē
1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God

Actually, since in this context, we are living in the modern world and no one is talking Hebrew or Greek, the word righteous means what it does in modern context - moral. In fact, there is no indication of there being any distinction even in greek or hebrew meanings. So no, no one is trying to force any sort of understanding - being moral is what righteousness actually means.

ah, no..

ah, yes..

[Drich]

Again, God is not the source of morality. God is the source of true Righteousness. Morlity is man's attempt at said Righteousness. That makes God's express will absolute and unchanging, and yet allows man to change his understanding of 'morality' to fit whatever culture or age he lives in. In short morality' is the sin man has found acceptable to live with while True Godly righteousness is the absence of sin.

Right on the cue, ladies and gentlemen. Give this guy a big hand.

http://You predict that an evasion is coming along and there it comes. Even his evasions are getting predictable.

Do you have book chapter and verse

Yes. It's called a dictionary. Look it up.

or are you simply trying to force a modern understanding of 'righteousness' onto the Hebrew word: tsĕdaqah which tells us in this context that Righteousness/tsĕdaqah
is an attribute of God? Or the greek word: dikaiosynē
1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God

Actually, since in this context, we are living in the modern world and no one is talking Hebrew or Greek, the word righteous means what it does in modern context - moral. In fact, there is no indication of there being any distinction even in greek or hebrew meanings. So no, no one is trying to force any sort of understanding - being moral is what righteousness actually means.

ah, no..

ah, yes..

Ah, no.. Again. Because we are talking about God, and God is only defined by the bible. Which means The nature of God is revealed only through the hebrew and greek words I provided. (not the modern english dictionary interpertation of the word in question) I established God is righteous and then defined the word in the context in which they were orginally written.
what you have done is ignored the orginal meaning of the word and context, then you supplimented your understanding of God with modern terms you are comfortable with. Again your arguement fails because you do not address God as He has been orginally defined.

[JohnDG]

Ah, no.. Again. Because we are talking about God, and God is only defined by the bible. Which means The nature of God is revealed only through the hebrew and greek words I provided. (not the modern english dictionary interpertation of the word in question) I established God is righteous and then defined the word in the context in which they were orginally written.
what you have done is ignored the orginal meaning of the word and context, then you supplimented your understanding of God with modern terms you are comfortable with. Again your arguement fails because you do not address God as He has been orginally defined.

Isn't saying that the bible is the word of god a judgement? Let alone saying god is only defined by the bible. Your argument fails because you make judgement's on behalf of your god about a machine printed book which you claim was written by him. lol you also said an infinitely, unfathomably complex being has been defined. You can't define god, you don't know what god is, you can't possibly know he's god.

[downbeatplumb]

So let me get this straight, this "god" of yours can commit any crime, start any genocide, do any manner of evil thing and get a pass simply because some ancient text defines "god" as righteous?

This seems to be the thrust here and I would like to say that this will not stand.

The world is a much more moral and generally nicer world than when these old books were scribbled down. This fact is that people have grown DESPITE religion

To see the most evil and intolerant groups look to were religion and other superstitions reign.

By the way i saw that film with jews judging god, it was good but a bit dry. It's natural home would have been on stage.

[Drich]

Isn't saying that the bible is the word of god a judgement?

How so?

Let alone saying god is only defined by the bible.

How else is the God of the bible defined? Or rather what other source material repersents the God of the Bible?

Your argument fails because you make judgement's on behalf of your god about a machine printed book which you claim was written by him.

lol indeed. the machine printing process is known as reproduction (I have already spoken about the differences between creating something and reproducing it once this week.) We reproduce the work and words of God either by hand or by 'machine.'

lol you also said an infinitely, unfathomably complex being has been defined. You can't define god, you don't know what god is, you can't possibly know he's god.

But, can't this very same God reveal or define Himself (at least in part) so as to educate those who wish to know of Him? Or is this beyond the scope of the God your have just "defined?"

[genkaus]

Ah, no.. Again. Because we are talking about God, and God is only defined by the bible. Which means The nature of God is revealed only through the hebrew and greek words I provided. (not the modern english dictionary interpertation of the word in question) I established God is righteous and then defined the word in the context in which they were orginally written.
what you have done is ignored the orginal meaning of the word and context, then you supplimented your understanding of God with modern terms you are comfortable with. Again your arguement fails because you do not address God as He has been orginally defined.

Ah, yes.. Again. Because your god is not just defined in the bible, he is defined in lot of other places as well. And given that your bible is known to self-contradictory and erronous at so many points, it is easily conceivable that whatever sense it used a particular word in might also be used mistakenly. And all this pales in the face of the fact that a simple search reveals that the meaning of the original greek and hebrew words were no different than the modern interpretation.

Your bible is not a book on linguistics. It may use the word righteous (or whatever the greek or hebrew equivalent may be), but the meaning of those words is not established by the bible. And since I see all these greek, hebrew and english words simply mean "moral" and I see no evidence of them ever meaning otherwise, I see no reason to give any credit to your vacuous distinction.

[greneknight]

Ah, no.. Again. Because we are talking about God, and God is only defined by the bible. Which means The nature of God is revealed only through the hebrew and greek words I provided. (not the modern english dictionary interpertation of the word in question) I established God is righteous and then defined the word in the context in which they were orginally written.
what you have done is ignored the orginal meaning of the word and context, then you supplimented your understanding of God with modern terms you are comfortable with. Again your arguement fails because you do not address God as He has been orginally defined.

Ah, yes.. Again. Because your god is not just defined in the bible, he is defined in lot of other places as well. And given that your bible is known to self-contradictory and erronous at so many points, it is easily conceivable that whatever sense it used a particular word in might also be used mistakenly. And all this pales in the face of the fact that a simple search reveals that the meaning of the original greek and hebrew words were no different than the modern interpretation.

Your bible is not a book on linguistics. It may use the word righteous (or whatever the greek or hebrew equivalent may be), but the meaning of those words is not established by the bible. And since I see all these greek, hebrew and english words simply mean "moral" and I see no evidence of them ever meaning otherwise, I see no reason to give any credit to your vacuous distinction.

Hi genkaus,

Actually, Drich is totally confused. He can't even explain why he chose the 66 books of the Bible as inspired. He can't name a single Church Council or a single Church Father or indeed anyone who decided on the 66 books as the Word of God. Just see this post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14712-po...#pid336877

He has refused to be clear how many books of the Bible are the Word of God because he knows he has no leg to stand on.

What puzzles me is how can fundies set so much store by the Bible when they don't even know a thing about the history of biblical canon and their knowledge of early church history is so poor.

[IATIA]

One thing that was missed in the trial, and is consistently missed today, is that the Pharoh wanted to release Moses' people, but god "hardened his heart" and then the Pharoh said "no" each time a plague ended.

That also represents immorality on god's part.

[greneknight]

Yes, the film "God on Trial" is extremely moving. With each utterance, God is buried deeper and deeper in his own sin, evil and degradation.

[Drich]

Ah, yes.. Again. Because your god is not just defined in the bible, he is defined in lot of other places as well.

So the God of the bible is defined where else, wikipedia?.. Now where did Wikipedia get it's info? And where did that source get it? and so on Back To The Bible. There is no other source material that describes the God of the bible, but the bible. This is the linch pin of many atheist arguements that demand proof of God outside of the bible. Do you really want to go down this road an allow a Christian the oppertunity to use the standard atheist arguements about God being sole sourced in the bible against you?

And given that your bible is known to self-contradictory and erronous at so many points, it is easily conceivable that whatever sense it used a particular word in might also be used mistakenly.

sweeping generality. try again.

And all this pales in the face of the fact that a simple search reveals that the meaning of the original greek and hebrew words were no different than the modern interpretation.

Source? My source tells us that Righteousness was a defining attribute of God, not just an adhearance to a moral code. In otherwords God's defining attributes are the pattern in which 'morality' is built. Morality is not a standard in which God must adhear to be righteous. again I point to all the crap arguements about how can a moral god do bad things...

Your bible is not a book on linguistics.

But Lexicons are, and it is the Thayers lexicon in which I have extrapolated the defination of the Word Righteousness, and how it was orginally used in the Hebrew and Greek.

It may use the word righteous (or whatever the greek or hebrew equivalent may be), but the meaning of those words is not established by the bible.

Which again is the job of a lexicon to tell you how a word is used in a biblical context. The blueletterbible.com is an online source that ascribes each greek/hebrew word in the bible a number and it defines each and every instance that word is use and how it is meant to be understood in the english in a given passage. That is why and how I can tell you with out any hesitation or doubt your understanding of the word righteousness is wrong, and not consistant with the orginal use of the word.

And since I see all these greek, hebrew and english words simply mean "moral" and I see no evidence of them ever meaning otherwise, I see no reason to give any credit to your vacuous distinction.

Becaue you simply have not been made aware or choose to ignore the reference material a good lexicon provides.

---

Ah, yes.. Again. Because your god is not just defined in the bible, he is defined in lot of other places as well. And given that your bible is known to self-contradictory and erronous at so many points, it is easily conceivable that whatever sense it used a particular word in might also be used mistakenly. And all this pales in the face of the fact that a simple search reveals that the meaning of the original greek and hebrew words were no different than the modern interpretation.

Your bible is not a book on linguistics. It may use the word righteous (or whatever the greek or hebrew equivalent may be), but the meaning of those words is not established by the bible. And since I see all these greek, hebrew and english words simply mean "moral" and I see no evidence of them ever meaning otherwise, I see no reason to give any credit to your vacuous distinction.

Hi genkaus,

Actually, Drich is totally confused. He can't even explain why he chose the 66 books of the Bible as inspired. He can't name a single Church Council or a single Church Father or indeed anyone who decided on the 66 books as the Word of God. Just see this post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14712-po...#pid336877

He has refused to be clear how many books of the Bible are the Word of God because he knows he has no leg to stand on.

What puzzles me is how can fundies set so much store by the Bible when they don't even know a thing about the history of biblical canon and their knowledge of early church history is so poor.

Then great wise and knoweledge one please take the time and go line by lines and destroy this arguement as you say you destroyed the last one.. Or is your link your only shinning moment, and you must strive to avoid direct interaction with me and point to a perceived win from this thread??? Again, Show me line by line. Take the words I translated and Show me with reference material where I misrepersented these words or how I have misrepersented the bible.