Like it or not, God is immoral.

[genkaus]

Not in the Hebrew or Greek which is what we are discussing. As the bible is the sole legitmate source for cataloging the attributes of the God of the bible. Because the bible (in the hebrew and in the greek) seperate morality and Righteousness, any honest discussion concerning the nature of the God of the bible must adhear to what has been seperated.

Except, they have not been separated even in the bible. According to YOUR lexicon, the word righteousness is used everywhere where the word morality is applicable and the word morality is used nowhere - thereby indicating there is no separation.

Again this does not mean you can pretend and say that my bible is in english therefore it is subject to my understanding of the modern dictionary.

No, just the translations.

It's not a difficult concept. Your bible is trnslated from Hebrew or Greek into modern English. The Lexicon lists the modern English counterparts of the words in Hebrew and Greek. The lexicon chose the word righteousness, which, in modern English is the same as morality. Therefore, the Greek and Hebrew words also mean the same thing as morality. Try to understand the simple concept that if A=B and B=C, then, A=C.

Again that is fine and dandy, but also understand that is not proper exegesis of the Bible, and subsequently not an accurate repersentation of the God it describes. I guess you see this as well which is why you are argueiing from a point of faith rather than reference material.

You have all the reference material you need. Are you now saying that the lexicon YOU pointed to is not accurate?

which means the rest of your post can be dismissed as uninformed commentary.

Even if it was uninformed commentary, it is still better than informed stupidity on your part. You have all the facts available to you and yet you insist on a distinction that exists nowhere but in your mind.

[Drich]

Except, they have not been separated even in the bible. According to YOUR lexicon, the word righteousness is used everywhere where the word morality is applicable and the word morality is used nowhere - thereby indicating there is no separation.

Then this conversation boils down to one simple task. In that you must prove your claim. Show us where the lexicon uses the word morality interchangably with Righteousness. I have noted 6 different words in the hebrew and in the greek that get translated into Righteousness or righteous, none of which make the distinction you claim, in that the word morality is never even mentioned, let alone used interchangably.

So again using topical reference material show me what you 'feel to be true' is indeed truth.

No, just the translations.

It's not a difficult concept. Your bible is trnslated from Hebrew or Greek into modern English. The Lexicon lists the modern English counterparts of the words in Hebrew and Greek. The lexicon chose the word righteousness, which, in modern English is the same as morality. Therefore, the Greek and Hebrew words also mean the same thing as morality. Try to understand the simple concept that if A=B and B=C, then, A=C.

Your right it is not a difficult concept to understand you are affirming the consenquent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[genkaus]

Then this conversation boils down to one simple task. In that you must prove your claim. Show us where the lexicon uses the word morality interchangably with Righteousness. I have noted 6 different words in the hebrew and in the greek that get translated into Righteousness or righteous, none of which make the distinction you claim, in that the word morality is never even mentioned, let alone used interchangably.

So again using topical reference material show me what you 'feel to be true' is indeed truth.

None of them make the distinction because there is no distinction to make. Morality is not mentioned because it means the same thing as righteousness and there is no need for redundancy. Why would a lexicon list all the words the greek and hebrew words can be translated into when one would suffice?

Here's your reference:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/righteous

right·eous
adjective
1. characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law.
2. morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
4. Slang . absolutely genuine or wonderful: some righteous playing by a jazz great.

Your right it is not a difficult concept to understand you are affirming the consenquent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Don't embarrass yourself by misapplying logical fallacies. For example, can you name the consequent that I'm affirming?

[Drich]

None of them make the distinction ....

Finally! Now that you have admitted that, I can move on and or ignore anything and everything else the proceeds this statement.

[Cinjin]

Arguing with the brothers-in-christ about the morality of god is so completely pointless.

Their god has to adhere to no rules. His actions are always just & righteous simply because he declares them to be. His morality cannot be defined by a human and therefore any working definition of any word to describe his actions can be changed at any time to suit him.

The known definitions of words like justice, fairness, love, unconditional, righteous, and even omnipotent are meaningless as they cannot be applied to an almighty deity. If god kills and maims than it is just and moral regardless if it clearly is not. The arrogance and stupidy of a christard will not allow you to debate this topic. "God wins every time ... thus saith the sheep."


An attempt to clarify what I mean:

This is a hammer. Worldwide, by all definitions, this is a hammer.

Christard: God does not have to adhere to a human's definition of a hammer, and god has already said that this is a spoon.
A lowly insignificant human does not tell god what a spoon is!

Replace the words hammer and spoon with any of the words aforementioned and you'll see why arguing this topic is an exercise in futility.

[genkaus]

None of them make the distinction ....

Finally! Now that you have admitted that, I can move on and or ignore anything and everything else the proceeds this statement.

That seems to be a common practice with you - ignore arguments and turn a blind eye towards evidence. So, I guess I 'll bookmark this statement and we can start all over again the next time you start spouting righteousness-morality distinction bullshit.

---

This is a hammer. Worldwide, by all definitions, this is a hammer.

Christard: God does not have to adhere to a human's definition of a hammer, and god has already said that this is a spoon.
A lowly insignificant human does not tell god what a spoon is!

The spoonism is in god's nature.

[greneknight]

Arguing with the brothers-in-christ about the morality of god is so completely pointless.

Their god has to adhere to no rules. His actions are always just & righteous simply because he declares them to be. His morality cannot be defined by a human and therefore any working definition of any word to describe his actions can be changed at any time to suit him.

The known definitions of words like justice, fairness, love, unconditional, righteous, and even omnipotent are meaningless as they cannot be applied to an almighty deity. If god kills and maims than it is just and moral regardless if it clearly is not. The arrogance and stupidy of a christard will not allow you to debate this topic. "God wins every time ... thus saith the sheep."


An attempt to clarify what I mean:

This is a hammer. Worldwide, by all definitions, this is a hammer.

Christard: God does not have to adhere to a human's definition of a hammer, and god has already said that this is a spoon.
A lowly insignificant human does not tell god what a spoon is!

Replace the words hammer and spoon with any of the words aforementioned and you'll see why arguing this topic is an exercise in futility.

Hey, I love Cinjin's "Christard". I think I can now distinguish myself from the other Christians. OK, this is my definition: A Christard is someone who calls himself a Christian but he believes in all the fables of the religion: God, unicorn, angels, the resurrection, virgin birth, demons, heaven and hell, etc.

A Christian, on the other hand, is one who follows the Christian tradition but he is too mature to believe in fables and supernatural nonsense.

I'm a Christian. Drich is CHRISTARD. Ho Ho Ho!!! This is so cool.