Like it or not, God is immoral.

[genkaus]

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?

I've never heard anyone ever claim that the your god is sourced only in the bible. There are references to him all over the place - in culture, arts, literature. None of it counts as proof of your god - just his attributes. In fact, as some of the theists on this forum argue, a lot of your god's attributes are not in fact in the bible but come from "interpretations".

sweeping generality. try again.

Why? It's so accurate and pithy.

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...

Really? Can you give me that source? Because from what I can find out there is not nor has there ever been any distinction in the meanings of righteousness and adherence to morality. In fact, the most common argument is that its because your god is morally upright (which, in fact, he is not) that righteousness can be attributed to him.

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.

If by "extrapolated" you mean "creatively interpreted" - I believe you. But since you had to extrapolate, it means that that was not how it was originally used in Hebrew and Greek - otherwise, you wouldn't have had to "extrapolate". The definition would have indicated it clearly.

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.

The blueletterbible.com, huh? Yeah, that sounds completely impartial. Don't tell me, show me. Show me that it ascribes the particular meaning in the particular verses and why does it do so. Remember, you'd also have to show that the meaning of righteousness is distinct form morality.

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

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Take the words I translated and Show me with reference material where I misrepersented these words or how I have misrepersented the bible.

Well, you state that righteousness is an attribute solely of god, it has been used to describe men in biblical verses as well. Therefore, it cannot be an attribute solely of god.

[Polaris]

Again, If morality is the ever changing standard of man, then man can judge anything moral or immoral. So, men have judged God Immoral.. So, what?

The so what amounts to an ultimately vain an attempt to make themselves look better not much different than the attack ads that flood American television this time of year.

[greneknight]

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.

I don't care what the Bible says because the Bible is a seriously flawed collection of ancient books. What I hope to show you in the other thread is simply this: there is no basis for you to say that the 66 books of the Bible are the inspired word of God. I've shown you there is no Early Church Father or any Church Council that decided on the 66 books. So I asked you in that thread this simple question: You set much store by the 66 books of the Bible as the word of God that nothing can countermand. WHAT IS YOUR BASIS for taking these 66 books to be the word of God?

[Drich]

I've never heard anyone ever claim that the your god is sourced only in the bible.

Seriously? This is the cornerstone of the atheist arguements that their isn't any proof of God outside of the bible.
This is atheism 101.

There are references to him all over the place - in culture, arts, literature. None of it counts as proof of your god - just his attributes.

None of which would be possiable if God was not first defined by scripture.

In fact, as some of the theists on this forum argue, a lot of your god's attributes are not in fact in the bible but come from "interpretations".

again no interpertation would be possiable if not for the bible to extrapolate and interprete from.

Really? Can you give me that source? Because from what I can find out there is not nor has there ever been any distinction in the meanings of righteousness and adherence to morality. In fact, the most common argument is that its because your god is morally upright (which, in fact, he is not) that righteousness can be attributed to him.

I did, the source was the blue letter bible. just type in a word and it will give you every instance of that word. Just find one that speaks of the nature of God and click on the number beside "righteousness."

If by "extrapolated" you mean "creatively interpreted" - I believe you. But since you had to extrapolate, it means that that was not how it was originally used in Hebrew and Greek - otherwise, you wouldn't have had to "extrapolate". The definition would have indicated it clearly.

By extrapolate I mean to say to choose or pick apart from the modern interpertation of that word that you have been repersenting. And again it seem you are not familiar with how a lexicon works, or have chosen to ignore it in favor of your own arguement. It gives specific uses and instances/context in which a word is used.

The blueletterbible.com, huh? Yeah, that sounds completely impartial. Don't tell me, show me. Show me that it ascribes the particular meaning in the particular verses and why does it do so. Remember, you'd also have to show that the meaning of righteousness is distinct form morality.

So giving you a link to the source material is not enough? are you so brainwash into people predigesting information and telling you how to think you are asking the man repersenting an opposing arguement to tell you how to use his website? Why not do a google search and try it yourself? Because if I simply give a link to page you will not know how or why I got there. Unless you are asking how to use a lexicon in general. Is this what you are asking?

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

appreantly so. this is for the Hebrew word do you want one for the greek as well?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

Well, you state that righteousness is an attribute solely of god,

No I did not. Cut and past the message where i supposedly said this.

it has been used to describe men in biblical verses as well. Therefore, it cannot be an attribute solely of god.

It seems someone is changing his position as to try and save face.

---

Again, If morality is the ever changing standard of man, then man can judge anything moral or immoral. So, men have judged God Immoral.. So, what?

The so what amounts to an ultimately vain an attempt to make themselves look better not much different than the attack ads that flood American television this time of year.

Every been to jail? My father was a prison gaurd for like 10 years or so. What 'this' reminds me of is the stories of murders and rapists ganging together to beat up what they consider to be the 'low lifes.'
i remember thinking, How can a man convicted of a terriable crime and sentenced to life in prison feel the justification to judge his terriable crime any less terriable that someone elses... Then it dawned on me.. The Meaning of Self Righteousness. In that One deems himself or his 'morality' as the true righteous standard. It is only from this position of absolute righteousness (derived from with in himself) that he can judge another when he himself has blood on his hands. Now think of the level of self righteousness needed to judge God from this position of hyprocrisy and truly feel one is justified in his judgement.

---

I don't care what the Bible says because the Bible is a seriously flawed collection of ancient books.

Once you involve yourself in a discussion and choose to repersent content or interperate said content of any book then you are bound by the limits of that content dispite what you think about the book as a whole. In otherwords you can not use the bible to define the nature of God and then frame a question by that defination Then discount the bible when it is used to answer your question. For it is through the bible your question was framed, and it is through the bible it is answered. To argue otherwise is an appeal failed logic.

What I hope to show you in the other thread is simply this: there is no basis for you to say that the 66 books of the Bible are the inspired word of God.

then put your efforts there. This thread is about the meaning of righteousness. If you have nothing to add then have the decency not to add filler for the sake of doing so.

[genkaus]

Seriously? This is the cornerstone of the atheist arguements that their isn't any proof of God outside of the bible.
This is atheism 101.

There is no proof of god outside or inside the bible. But we are not talking about proof here.

None of which would be possiable if God was not first defined by scripture.

But since they have gone beyond the scripture, it cannot be treated as the sole source of god's definition.

again no interpertation would be possiable if not for the bible to extrapolate and interprete from.

And since there has been so much of that extrapolation and interpretation, the bible no longer remains the sole source of your god's definition.

I did, the source was the blue letter bible. just type in a word and it will give you every instance of that word. Just find one that speaks of the nature of God and click on the number beside "righteousness."

I did. And there is no indication there that it means anything other "morally upright"

By extrapolate I mean to say to choose or pick apart from the modern interpertation of that word that you have been repersenting. And again it seem you are not familiar with how a lexicon works, or have chosen to ignore it in favor of your own arguement. It gives specific uses and instances/context in which a word is used.

And on what basis are you picking or choosing? Not on the basis of the lexicon - there is none. In all the instances the word is used, it has not been shown to mean anything different than being moral.

So giving you a link to the source material is not enough? are you so brainwash into people predigesting information and telling you how to think you are asking the man repersenting an opposing arguement to tell you how to use his website? Why not do a google search and try it yourself? Because if I simply give a link to page you will not know how or why I got there. Unless you are asking how to use a lexicon in general. Is this what you are asking?

Done the google. Seen your link. There is no indication even in your link that the word is not synonymous to being moral.

appreantly so. this is for the Hebrew word do you want one for the greek as well?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

Do this one first. Show me where the lexicon distinguishes between righteous as god's attribute and being moral as god's attribute.

No I did not. Cut and past the message where i supposedly said this.

"That is why God descriibes Himself as Righteous. Righteousness is not morality. Morality is man's (Flawed) attempt at his personal version of Righteousness."

Your statement.

It seems someone is changing his position as to try and save face.

Not at all. I've always said that being righteous is another way of saying moral and therefore righteousness is just another way of saying morality.

Every been to jail? My father was a prison gaurd for like 10 years or so. What 'this' reminds me of is the stories of murders and rapists ganging together to beat up what they consider to be the 'low lifes.'
i remember thinking, How can a man convicted of a terriable crime and sentenced to life in prison feel the justification to judge his terriable crime any less terriable that someone elses... Then it dawned on me.. The Meaning of Self Righteousness. In that One deems himself or his 'morality' as the true righteous standard. It is only from this position of absolute righteousness (derived from with in himself) that he can judge another when he himself has blood on his hands. Now think of the level of self righteousness needed to judge God from this position of hyprocrisy and truly feel one is justified in his judgement.

Sounds like a concept particularly applicable to your god. He has more blood on his hand that any creature - living or dead and he talks about his own position as that of absolute righteousness. The only difference is, he is not rotting in prison - but should be.

[greneknight]

I don't care what the Bible says because the Bible is a seriously flawed collection of ancient books.

Once you involve yourself in a discussion and choose to repersent content or interperate said content of any book then you are bound by the limits of that content dispite what you think about the book as a whole. In otherwords you can not use the bible to define the nature of God and then frame a question by that defination Then discount the bible when it is used to answer your question. For it is through the bible your question was framed, and it is through the bible it is answered. To argue otherwise is an appeal failed logic.

Nonsense! Of course I can use the Bible to discredit your belief. I don't believe in the daft Bible. You believe in it. You base your faith on the Bible. I have every right to show you that from your own book, your faith has no basis.

Right now, I am showing you that there is no basis in the first place to trust the Bible on that other thread but you are being very evasive. I will be Rumpole and get you to answer the questions soon enough.

What I hope to show you in the other thread is simply this: there is no basis for you to say that the 66 books of the Bible are the inspired word of God.

then put your efforts there. This thread is about the meaning of righteousness. If you have nothing to add then have the decency not to add filler for the sake of doing so.

Yes I have done so and this is my post in that thread:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14712-po...#pid337069

As you can see, you are terribly evasive and to this moment you refuse to answer my simple question: Since you set much store by the Bible, what is your basis for saying that the 66 books of the Holy Bible are the word of God and all other books including the Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon aren't?

It's a simple question.

[Drich]

[quote='genkaus' pid='337050' dateline='1347752589']
There is no proof of god outside or inside the bible. But we are not talking about proof here. [/quote] We are talking about defining God. God has only ever defined Himself in the bible. Making the bible the only source in which to find an accurate repersentation of God, by God Himself. Hope that clear things up. You seem to be blurring the lines away from what has been orginally stated.

[quote]But since they have gone beyond the scripture, it cannot be treated as the sole source of god's definition. [/quote]You are confusing source material with a commentary. Just because someone has an opinion does not make them a source.

[quote]And since there has been so much of that extrapolation and interpretation, the bible no longer remains the sole source of your god's definition. [/quote] again, you have confused a commentary or secondary source of information with the true or orginal source.

[quote]I did. And there is no indication there that it means anything other "morally upright" [/quote]are you being obstinate or ignorant? Defination 1:b identifies the Hebrew word: tsĕdaqah/צְדָקָה as an attribute of God.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

[quote]And on what basis are you picking or choosing? Not on the basis of the lexicon - there is none. In all the instances the word is used, it has not been shown to mean anything different than being moral. [/quote] Your either lying or you have not looked.

[quote]Done the google. Seen your link. There is no indication even in your link that the word is not synonymous to being moral. [/quote]Again show me where i said that righteousness could not mean morality.

[quote]Do this one first. Show me where the lexicon distinguishes between righteous as god's attribute and being moral as god's attribute. [/quote]
1) justice, righteousness
a) righteousness (in government)
b) righteousness (of God's attribute)
1) of judge, ruler, king
2) of law
3) of Davidic king Messiah
c) righteousness (in a case or cause)
d) righteousness, truthfulness
e) righteousness (as ethically right)
f) righteousness (as vindicated), justification, salvation
1) of God
2) prosperity (of people)
g) righteous acts

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

[quote]"That is why God describes Himself as Righteous. Righteousness is not morality. Morality is man's (Flawed) attempt at his personal version of Righteousness."[/quote]
I don't see how you have confused the two statements. where are you confused? Never mind your next paragraph answers my question.

[quote]Not at all. I've always said that being righteous is another way of saying moral and therefore righteousness is just another way of saying morality. [/quote] In the Orginal Hebrew defination, where is your statement spelled out? I see that Righteousness is God's standard. I see where Righteousness is attributed as a quality or attribute of God, and I can see how something ethically right can be considered Righteous. However I do not see anything in the Hebrew defination provided, that allows you to make the jump, and say everything that is moral is righteous. Moral things CAN be considered righteous,(if they are "ethically right") as defined by scripture, but there is nothing that says that morality and righteousness is the same thing. A good example would be the things in soceity that are considered morally right, but not all things soceity deems morally right, is Righteous or ethically right by God's standard. (like gay marriage) This is a perfect example where man's morality conflicts with God's righteous standard or God's righteousness. This also PROOVES the two terms are Not interchangable.

[quote]Sounds like a concept particularly applicable to your god. He has more blood on his hand that any creature - living or dead and he talks about his own position as that of absolute righteousness. The only difference is, he is not rotting in prison - but should be.[/quote]
This is A PERFECT Example of the level of self righteousness needed to judge God. Change nothing!

---

[quote='greneknight' pid='337072' dateline='1347757165']
[quote]Nonsense! Of course I can use the Bible to discredit your belief. I don't believe in the daft Bible. You believe in it. You base your faith on the Bible. I have every right to show you that from your own book, your faith has no basis.[/quote]Redherring. I never said any of this.

[quote]Right now, I am showing you that there is no basis in the first place to trust the Bible on that other thread but you are being very evasive. I will be Rumpole and get you to answer the questions soon enough. [/quote]what are you talking about?

[quote]As you can see, you are terribly evasive and to this moment you refuse to answer my simple question: Since you set much store by the Bible, what is your basis for saying that the 66 books of the Holy Bible are the word of God and all other books including the Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon aren't?[/quote]Why do you believe that I said they weren't the words of God? Do you not know how to have a conversation or discussion beyond your rehersed and practiced arguements? Are you at a complete loss for words if i do not follow the path you are expecting? Here a hint on what you should do: ASK A Question.

It's simple to ask a question don't you think?

[genkaus]

We are talking about defining God. God has only ever defined Himself in the bible. Making the bible the only source in which to find an accurate repersentation of God, by God Himself. Hope that clear things up. You seem to be blurring the lines away from what has been orginally stated.

Except god neither defined himself nor wrote the bible. People who wrote the bible defined god in it as they see fit.

You are confusing source material with a commentary. Just because someone has an opinion does not make them a source.

So we should summarily discard your claims about distinction between morality and righteousness then?

are you being obstinate or ignorant? Defination 1:b identifies the Hebrew word: tsĕdaqah/צְדָקָה as an attribute of God.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

And it doesn't indicate that the attribute means anything different that being morally upright. You are the one being obstinate and ignorant.

Your either lying or you have not looked.

Nope. You're just wrong.

Again show me where i said that righteousness could not mean morality.

The same place you defined morality as "man's flawed attempt at righteousness" thereby indicating that they do not mean the same thing.

1) justice, righteousness
a) righteousness (in government)
b) righteousness (of God's attribute)
1) of judge, ruler, king
2) of law
3) of Davidic king Messiah
c) righteousness (in a case or cause)
d) righteousness, truthfulness
e) righteousness (as ethically right)
f) righteousness (as vindicated), justification, salvation
1) of God
2) prosperity (of people)
g) righteous acts

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

I search in vain for any distinction between righteousness and morality - but there is none.

In the Orginal Hebrew defination, where is your statement spelled out? I see that Righteousness is God's standard. I see where Righteousness is attributed as a quality or attribute of God, and I can see how something ethically right can be considered Righteous. However I do not see anything in the Hebrew defination provided, that allows you to make the jump, and say everything that is moral is righteous. Moral things CAN be considered righteous,(if they are "ethically right") as defined by scripture, but there is nothing that says that morality and righteousness is the same thing. A good example would be the things in soceity that are considered morally right, but not all things soceity deems morally right, is Righteous or ethically right by God's standard. (like gay marriage) This is a perfect example where man's morality conflicts with God's righteous standard or God's righteousness. This also PROOVES the two terms are Not interchangable.

Every meaning of the word given in the Hebrew definition is synonymous with morality. It even goes as far as to indicate different entities to which the term righteous can be attributed (god, government, man) and does not use a separate term for society and god - as you do - which would indicate that righteousness - which means the same thing as morality - can, like morality, have different standards. Which is why, society's actions can be unrighteous by god's standards and your god's actions are unrighteous by society's standard. This PROOVES that while the terms morality and righteousness are interchangeable, the standards behind them are not.

This is A PERFECT Example of the level of self righteousness needed to judge God. Change nothing!

Just as your god is the perfect example of self-righteousness needed to judge humanity. I'm not changing anything.

[Drich]

Except god neither defined himself nor wrote the bible. People who wrote the bible defined god in it as they see fit.

This would have made a good arguement if you lead with it, but as it is this effort seems like a desperate attempt to salvage your personal pride.

So we should summarily discard your claims about distinction between morality and righteousness then?

Only if you wish to also dismiss an accurate protrayal of the relationship between righteousness and 'morality.'

And it doesn't indicate that the attribute means anything different that being morally upright. You are the one being obstinate and ignorant.

Defination1B says otherwise. Can't you admit when you are wrong and been shown to be a fool for argueing reference material? If no, then simply remain silent. It is better to be thought of as a fool, than open say/write something and prove everyone right. The Lexicon plainly says Righteousness is an attribute of God. Defination 1B Nothing elses needs to be said here.

Nope. You're just wrong.

Nuh-uh.

1) justice, righteousness
a) righteousness (in government)
b) righteousness (of God's attribute)
1) of judge, ruler, king
2) of law
3) of Davidic king Messiah
c) righteousness (in a case or cause)
d) righteousness, truthfulness
e) righteousness (as ethically right)
f) righteousness (as vindicated), justification, salvation
1) of God
2) prosperity (of people)
g) righteous acts

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

I search in vain for any distinction between righteousness and morality - but there is none.

I have pointed out several times in this thread that 'Morality" Is mans attemp at his own version of righteousness. I even pointed to the 'Self Righteousness' needed to judge God. to which you have even given a heart felt example.... Do you still need me to spell it out for you or do you get it yet???

Man's Morality is what the bible/Christ refers to as Self righteousness. This behaivor is catagorically condemned across the board by Christ through several parables that he taught. For the sin we are willing to accept or to incorperate into our lives like gossip, white lies or even something as big as homosexuality, has been deemed unacceptable by God and His stated righteousness. So inorder for one to accept these sins as accepted or moral behaivor, then one must have a righteousness apart from God. this 'righteousness' is often derived from one's self or the community in which he chooses to live.

Every meaning of the word given in the Hebrew definition is synonymous with morality.

No it is not for i have just shown you where man's 'Morality' differs from God's stated righteousness. therefore the two words are Not ALWAYS synomous. There are 'moral acts to be considered righteous, but not all of man's morality is compatiable with Godly Righteousness. Therefore the two words can not be used interchangably. Not by an honest man anyway.

It even goes as far as to indicate different entities to which the term righteous can be attributed (god, government, man) and does not use a separate term for society and god -

Indeed it does in that all the things listed must comply with the standards of God. Read the defination and the suplimentary materials on the linked page again.

as you do - which would indicate that righteousness - which means the same thing as morality - can, like morality, have different standards.

Not even close. The on page defination does not support your assertion. reset and try again this time use the on page definations and commentary. otherwise know your commentary will be rightfully trivilized and dismissed.

Just as your god is the perfect example of self-righteousness needed to judge humanity. I'm not changing anything.

So you believe yourself to be on par with God? And because God has the authority to dictate righteousness, you do as well?

Goodluck with trying to sell God on that one.

[IATIA]

Have you actually read the bible? The murder and mayhem done in the name and at the command of that tyrannical monster is beyond any atrocities committed by man alone. That monster of the bible is sick and demented.

If you have read the bible from cover to cover then you must agree as such.