Quote:Now, go and read what I asked for. Then go and read Lev 19 and Mat 23. Then go and read what I asked for once again.

Asked and answered.

Quote: Do you see the problem?

Yes you are demanding a glossary or dictionary type of definition when you know good and well little to no words/terms are defined in such away in the bible. This makes your request a red herring. You are attempting to shift the topic being discussed, to something that categorically does not exist in the texts you are demanding they come from.

Quote:I said: "Please, start by providing the bible quotes and verses that define morality and righteousness. Not just verses you think you can interpret their meanings from. "

That is why I posted the references I did. I did not think these things, they were written long before i was born. The principles have been established over and over in these two chapters. God's absolute standard against man's corrupt efforts to apply these standards with the sin he is willing to live with. God's Righteousness, and morality or AKA Self righteousness.

The principles are clearly spelled out in detail. My representation of the christian terms has been satisfied to all of the standards and requirements of the Faith. I do not own any explanation to you or anyone else beyond this. This is a biblical representation of the terms supported by these two chapters. End of story. If you wish to embrace the popular or a given cultural understanding of the words then again, feel free to do so. I am not looking to redefine your favorite dictionary. I am simply looking to give those who wish to ask biblically based or God related question based on morality the incite to do so responsibility.

Quote:That's settles then, god's morality changes.

God does not have a 'morality.' morality is built from God's Absolute righteous standard. God's righteousness does not Change. In your example it is still a sin to eat shell fish however Atonement allows me to eat whatever i wish.
Atonement allows me to live a moral life rather than demand that i live a righteous one. God's standard of Righteousness did not change the way i obtain it has.

(Maybe next time ask why something is the way it is rather than assume)

Quote:I've given you lots of chances to make the corrections. Even in this post, where you restated the original post, you could have acknowledged what you missed the first time around. Can you show me where you have provided the distinction between popular and biblical morality?

This is a lie. your efforts to this point have only ever pointed back to the OP. If your efforts in the preservation of the Original post were not so complete, and asserted every single time I deviated from what you understood the OP to mean. I would not have any grounds to post this objection.

As it is your works and efforts have singularly been directed at holding me to YOUR Interpretation of what was Originally stated. You have no desire to discuss Morality except in so far as a platform to feed your personal pride. (Hence your request that I reset the topic on your terms as away to hide your foolish errors.)*spoiler alert: not going to happen. anyone who cares to read all of this mess can plainly see you are looking for legitimacy to salvage your efforts to this point. I am content in letting your work die on the vine.

For i have in this thread to you and others, conceded that there are indeed two separate standards or understandings of these terms and i have also gone so far as to speak to the divisions of both. But apparently this did not suit your expedition and attempted to hijack this thread to reflect your closed minded effort to dismantle all that has been said in favor of your personal very cultural interpretation of Morality. Truthfully, here you and what you believe about morality is in the minority. Have you failed to see what others have posted? Apparently you are the only one who can not see the divisions I put between God's righteous and Moral standards and the popular interpretation of them. Like it or not my work speaks for itself.

Because of that there isn't a need to do any of this:

Quote:Start over. Start by defining biblical morality and righteousness along with the definitions that are already accepted. Provide the sources of these definitions. Point out the differences between them. Explain why the established definitions are not applicable to the bible. And then tell us why we should give a shit.

thereby validating any of your arguments.

(April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am)Drich Wrote: Asked and answered.

Incorrectly at that.

(April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am)Drich Wrote: Yes you are demanding a glossary or dictionary type of definition when you know good and well little to no words/terms are defined in such away in the bible. This makes your request a red herring. You are attempting to shift the topic being discussed, to something that categorically does not exist in the texts you are demanding they come from.

I'm not asking for anything you didn't promise. You said that the definitions of morality and righteousness you are using were the ones given in the bible. Now put up or shut up.

(April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am)Drich Wrote: That is why I posted the references I did. I did not think these things, they were written long before i was born.

But you think you can interpret the definition of morality and righteousness form them. You are wrong.

(April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am)Drich Wrote: The principles have been established over and over in these two chapters. God's absolute standard against man's corrupt efforts to apply these standards with the sin he is willing to live with. God's Righteousness, and morality or AKA Self righteousness.

The principles are clearly spelled out in detail. My representation of the christian terms has been satisfied to all of the standards and requirements of the Faith. I do not own any explanation to you or anyone else beyond this. This is a biblical representation of the terms supported by these two chapters. End of story. If you wish to embrace the popular or a given cultural understanding of the words then again, feel free to do so. I am not looking to redefine your favorite dictionary. I am simply looking to give those who wish to ask biblically based or God related question based on morality the incite to do so responsibility.

Let's look at the few details about the passages you mentioned for your "Biblical" definitions of morality and righteousness.

1. In either Levicticus 19 or Matthew 23, the word morality does not appear.

2. The word "righteous" has been used a few times, but only to describe an attribute of men - not god.

3. There is no indication of multiple moral codes.

In short, in the bible passages you provided, there is simply no indication of what "righteousness" means and what "morality" means. So, you definitions aren't even based on the Bible.

Oh, wait. I missed a part.

You say that your representation satisfies the standards of your faith?

Ok then. We all know how pathetic the standards of your faith are. Its not like your standards care about evidence or reality or what is true. The steaming pile of bullshit in the bible is evidence that any outlandish story can get a pass as long as it demeans humanity. So, yes, your definitions do pass your own standards.

They do not pass ours. You haven't even justified that these definitions are biblically based - let alone showing that these are the correct ones.

You say you want us to use these definitions when questioning the bible and your god? For that, you'll have to
a) provide evidence form the bible where these terms are defined or their usage is actually indicated.
b) determine why these terms are applicable where the bible or your god is the subject and not the context of discussion
c) determine how, in conflicting contexts, these definitions would be more exhaustively applicable than the popularly applicable ones.

Right now, by our standards, you are failing miserably in the first step.

(April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am)Drich Wrote: God does not have a 'morality.' morality is built from God's Absolute righteous standard. God's righteousness does not Change. In your example it is still a sin to eat shell fish however Atonement allows me to eat whatever i wish.
Atonement allows me to live a moral life rather than demand that i live a righteous one. God's standard of Righteousness did not change the way i obtain it has.

(Maybe next time ask why something is the way it is rather than assume)

You haven't established any of that yet. Until you do so, morality is just a code of conduct. Which means, god's morality changed.

(April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am)Drich Wrote: This is a lie. your efforts to this point have only ever pointed back to the OP. If your efforts in the preservation of the Original post were not so complete, and asserted every single time I deviated from what you understood the OP to mean. I would not have any grounds to post this objection.

Since you still haven't corrected the OP, I would still keep pointing to it whenever your deviate from it. Unlike your god, I'm actually going to hold you to your mistakes.

(April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am)Drich Wrote: As it is your works and efforts have singularly been directed at holding me to YOUR Interpretation of what was Originally stated. You have no desire to discuss Morality except in so far as a platform to feed your personal pride. (Hence your request that I reset the topic on your terms as away to hide your foolish errors.)*spoiler alert: not going to happen. anyone who cares to read all of this mess can plainly see you are looking for legitimacy to salvage your efforts to this point. I am content in letting your work die on the vine.

For i have in this thread to you and others, conceded that there are indeed two separate standards or understandings of these terms and i have also gone so far as to speak to the divisions of both. But apparently this did not suit your expedition and attempted to hijack this thread to reflect your closed minded effort to dismantle all that has been said in favor of your personal very cultural interpretation of Morality. Truthfully, here you and what you believe about morality is in the minority. Have you failed to see what others have posted? Apparently you are the only one who can not see the divisions I put between God's righteous and Moral standards and the popular interpretation of them. Like it or not my work speaks for itself.

Because of that there isn't a need to do any of this:

Apparently, not content with failing language, you are determined to fail mathematics as well.

Well, putting all your indignant chest-thumping, hand-waving, foot-stomping and brick-shitting aside, the core of your argument fails because
a) you cannot provide acceptable biblical basis for your definition.
b) you cannot provide context where these definitions would be applicable
c) you cannot provide context where the established definitions would not be applicable.
d) you cannot actually acknowledge any difference between established and proposed definitions.
e) you cannot provide context where these definitions would be translated to common usage.

Even for a theist, that is a pretty impressive failure to establish an argument.

(April 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm)genkaus Wrote:

Quote:1. In either Levicticus 19 or Matthew 23, the word morality does not appear.

you can also check the rest of the bible and the word morality or moral will not appear as they are new constructs. What we consider "moral" he bible defines as self righteousness. God's standard is righteousness our deviation of that standard is self righteousness. Since we did not like that term we changed it to being up right and or moral.

Quote:2. The word "righteous" has been used a few times, but only to describe an attribute of men - not god.

Romans 10:10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Quote:3. There is no indication of multiple moral codes.

Mat 23:23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.[c]

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies[d] the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells[e] in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Every single woe to a scribe and Pharisee or blind guide is a law that they have made that undergirds their "moral code" It is counted as a woe because it undercuts the righteousness of God with their own self righteousness/morality.

Quote:They do not pass ours. You haven't even justified that these definitions are biblically based - let alone showing that these are the correct ones.

Have you considered your hard heart will not allow you to understand for the sake of your pride? woe to the man who is made the fool for the sake of his own pride.

Quote:You say you want us to use these definitions when questioning the bible and your god? For that, you'll have to
a) provide evidence form the bible where these terms are defined or their usage is actually indicated.
b) determine why these terms are applicable where the bible or your god is the subject and not the context of discussion
c) determine how, in conflicting contexts, these definitions would be more exhaustively applicable than the popularly applicable ones.

Done.

Quote:Right now, by our standards, you are failing miserably in the first step.

Read this thread in it's entirety. there is no "our" it's only you.

[quote='Drich' pid='273758' dateline='1334675709']God does not have a 'morality.' morality is built from God's Absolute righteous standard. God's righteousness does not Change. In your example it is still a sin to eat shell fish however Atonement allows me to eat whatever i wish.
Atonement allows me to live a moral life rather than demand that i live a righteous one. God's standard of Righteousness did not change the way i obtain it has.

(Maybe next time ask why something is the way it is rather than assume)

Quote:You haven't established any of that yet. Until you do so, morality is just a code of conduct. Which means, god's morality changed.

now you are just pulling my leg right? You can't seriously think any of this?? Tell me the truth do you not understand the most basic concepts of Christianity? or are you trying to see if I do? Because I have been waiting for one of you to ask for scriptural proof of all of this since I got here. I can not give it until you ask for book chapter and verse lest I be ban by a over zealous mods for preaching. So if you want to go down this road make your intentions known. until then here are the cliff notes version:
2Co 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become a the righteousness of God in Him.

For we are not talking about "morality" as being God's standard we define God's standard as being unchanging. That is why Jesus shed His blood on the cross. so we do not have to live out God's complete standard of Righteousness. His blood sacrifice is known as an atoning sacrifice He was beaten and bloodied and ultimately killed so you would not have to be for failing to meet God's standard of righteousness. This atonement allows one to live a 'moral" life and still be found righteous before God if that life has been dedicated to God. Morality in of itself is nothing more than the same self righteousness the Pharisees and the scribes were condemned for. the difference between them and us is the atoning sacrifice of Christ. They did not have it and they self righteousness/morality was used to serve them as Mat 23 points out. Just pull the trigger on Book chapter and verse (using that exact phrase) and i will be more than eager to take this conversation up a notch.

Quote:Since you still haven't corrected the OP, I would still keep pointing to it whenever your deviate from it. Unlike your god, I'm actually going to hold you to your mistakes.

I still contend there were no mistakes. The point of a thread here in the west is to plant a kernel of an idea and then develop it. OP's are generally just a starting point, and because I did not condemn the Idea of two separate moralities or Righteous standards, infact I even alluded to them no "mistake" was made in the OP. The only mistake made here is one basic understanding and protocol of the point or purpose of how a forum works outside of your country of origin.

Quote:a) you cannot provide acceptable biblical basis for your definition.
b) you cannot provide context where these definitions would be applicable
c) you cannot provide context where the established definitions would not be applicable.
d) you cannot actually acknowledge any difference between established and proposed definitions.
e) you cannot provide context where these definitions would be translated to common usage.

Even for a theist, that is a pretty impressive failure to establish an argument.

Uh, no. not on your terms. your efforts have been found wanting. I have shown you and everyone else the great lengths in which you had to go to maintain your farce. No amount of pressure from you will prompt me to justify your failure to address these points in their proper context. If you wish to revisit them then you going to have to work it in the conversation as it stands now. you will not be allowed to strip the conversation down out of the context in which I have labored to frame it just to address each point in the way best suited to your argument.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: you can also check the rest of the bible and the word morality or moral will not appear as they are new constructs. What we consider "moral" he bible defines as self righteousness. God's standard is righteousness our deviation of that standard is self righteousness. Since we did not like that term we changed it to being up right and or moral.

Sorry, I don't see the word "self righteousness" in those passages either. Besides, don't try to change the bible. If it says self-righteousness, then use self-righteousness. Don't arbitrarily change it to morality tjust because you didn't like it.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Romans 10:10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Yup, no self-righteousness here either. By the examples you've given, righteousness is just a synonym for morality. It talks about god's righteousness (morality) and people's righteousness (morality) but nowhere does it indicate that righteousness itself means something other than morality.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Mat 23:23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.[c]

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies[d] the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells[e] in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Every single woe to a scribe and Pharisee or blind guide is a law that they have made that undergirds their "moral code" It is counted as a woe because it undercuts the righteousness of God with their own self righteousness/morality.

Good, finally you are trying to provide examples of multiple moral codes. It still doesn't identify their morality as "self-righteousness", only as righteousness. Thus, righteousness means morality; there is god's morality and man's morality and clearly your Jesus doesn't like man's morality.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Have you considered your hard heart will not allow you to understand for the sake of your pride? woe to the man who is made the fool for the sake of his own pride.

Yes, and I've rejected the notion as false. Unlike you, I don't use my heart to do my thinking.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Done.

Nope.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Read this thread in it's entirety. there is no "our" it's only you.

Have you found an atheist here who accepts your standards? Gimme a name.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: now you are just pulling my leg right? You can't seriously think any of this?? Tell me the truth do you not understand the most basic concepts of Christianity? or are you trying to see if I do? Because I have been waiting for one of you to ask for scriptural proof of all of this since I got here. I can not give it until you ask for book chapter and verse lest I be ban by a over zealous mods for preaching. So if you want to go down this road make your intentions known. until then here are the cliff notes version:
2Co 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become a the righteousness of God in Him.

I've told you what I want to see. I want to see the chapter and verse which distinguishes between the meanings of morality and righteousness. All you have shown me now is that those two are synonymous.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: For we are not talking about "morality" as being God's standard we define God's standard as being unchanging. That is why Jesus shed His blood on the cross. so we do not have to live out God's complete standard of Righteousness. His blood sacrifice is known as an atoning sacrifice He was beaten and bloodied and ultimately killed so you would not have to be for failing to meet God's standard of righteousness. This atonement allows one to live a 'moral" life and still be found righteous before God if that life has been dedicated to God. Morality in of itself is nothing more than the same self righteousness the Pharisees and the scribes were condemned for. the difference between them and us is the atoning sacrifice of Christ. They did not have it and they self righteousness/morality was used to serve them as Mat 23 points out. Just pull the trigger on Book chapter and verse (using that exact phrase) and i will be more than eager to take this conversation up a notch.

So far, all you have established is that morality and righteousness means the same thing

Okay, I understand your argument now. God has one set of morals for himself and another set for judging people. So, while he doesn't change his own morality, he changes which morality is to be used. Its like, the original suit remains the same, he just wears a different one for the occasion.

Damn, that must be how he gets away with all the genocide.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: I still contend there were no mistakes. The point of a thread here in the west is to plant a kernel of an idea and then develop it. OP's are generally just a starting point, and because I did not condemn the Idea of two separate moralities or Righteous standards, infact I even alluded to them no "mistake" was made in the OP. The only mistake made here is one basic understanding and protocol of the point or purpose of how a forum works outside of your country of origin.

So, according to you, in a discussion about morality and righteousness, failing to acknowledge their established definition before putting forward your own unsubstantiated one is not a mistake?

(April 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Uh, no. not on your terms. your efforts have been found wanting. I have shown you and everyone else the great lengths in which you had to go to maintain your farce. No amount of pressure from you will prompt me to justify your failure to address these points in their proper context. If you wish to revisit them then you going to have to work it in the conversation as it stands now. you will not be allowed to strip the conversation down out of the context in which I have labored to frame it just to address each point in the way best suited to your argument.

If by farce, you mean forcing you to acknowledge the inapplicability of your definitions in contemporary contexts, I'm quite proud of the work I did on it.
And I won't have to work anything in anywhere. You are still at step 1. Look at the list again. Right now, you are just trying to provide and justify the biblical basis for your definitions. And failing at that. You are not going to revisit any of those steps because you haven't visited them in the first place.

You are going according to my plan, kiddo, you are just too dumb to realize it.

(April 17, 2012 at 6:08 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Wait. Psychic powers? Ability to predict the future?



So do you also believe in the ability to pray terminal illnesses away, too? Despite scientific studies having shown that prayer actually has a slightly detrimental effect? You know, doing the OPPOSITE? Or maybe you believe in miracles, even though those seem to be reserved exclusively for non-amputees, right? Maybe you believe in the abilities of gypsies to see someone's fate by looking at crystal balls? Unicorns? Fairies? Elves, maybe? Santy Claus? Wow, and I thought it hard enough to take you seriously...

I am talking about the sixth sense that's all. Paranormal powers etc. But to see the future is something else as the future has not happened yet so how can it be done, does God give some people previews? Is the future preordaind? I believe in miracles, it's a miracle the USA hasn't been nuked yet.

(April 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm)Kratos Wrote: I believe in miracles, it's a miracle the USA hasn't been nuked yet.

Lmao.

(April 17, 2012 at 5:58 pm)genkaus Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='273962' dateline='1334696152']Mat 23:23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.[c]

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies[d] the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells[e] in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Every single woe to a scribe and Pharisee or blind guide is a law that they have made that undergirds their "moral code" It is counted as a woe because it undercuts the righteousness of God with their own self righteousness/morality.

Quote:Good, finally you are trying to provide examples of multiple moral codes. It still doesn't identify their morality as "self-righteousness", only as righteousness. Thus, righteousness means morality; there is god's morality and man's morality and clearly your Jesus doesn't like man's morality.

Seriously? you are completely waisting my time. is this the first time you have read Mat 23? I have quoted from it three times now, and three times you denied it's message. Now that I post what you have denied your response is

Quote:"finally you are trying to provide examples of your moral code?"

This means you did not know the content of the message you have denied three times.

I honestly thought you were worth the effort but you have proven me to be a fool. a mistake I will not make again anytime soon. i must shake the dust from my feet and let my peace return to me and move on to someone who truly has an interest.

As far as I am concerned the message and the efforts i have put into this conversation are yours to do with as you will, but know my efforts here are at an end with you.

(April 18, 2012 at 12:43 am)Drich Wrote: Seriously? you are completely waisting my time. is this the first time you have read Mat 23? I have quoted from it three times now, and three times you denied it's message. Now that I post what you have denied your response is

Quote:"finally you are trying to provide examples of your moral code?"

This means you did not know the content of the message you have denied three times.

I honestly thought you were worth the effort but you have proven me to be a fool. a mistake I will not make again anytime soon. i must shake the dust from my feet and let my peace return to me and move on to someone who truly has an interest.

As far as I am concerned the message and the efforts i have put into this conversation are yours to do with as you will, but know my efforts here are at an end with you.

Notice my use of the word "trying". I'm still denying the content of the message because the content does not sat what you claim it does. You are indicating that it provides definition for righteousness as distinguished from self-righteousness and it does not do that. Maybe I should have been clearer. You are still failing at providing what you set out to do - a biblical distinction between morality and righteousness. All you have done is provide evidence that even the bible thinks that they mean the same thing. Oh wait, I did point that out.

If you want to chicken out of the debate, go ahead. But don't blame it on me. I'll continue watching this thread and keep pointing out any other errors that you keep making.

(April 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm)Kratos Wrote: I believe in miracles, it's a miracle the USA hasn't been nuked yet.

...I...

...bu-...

Y-...wh...

...

Shit, you kinda have me there... XD

(April 18, 2012 at 12:53 am)genkaus Wrote:

(April 18, 2012 at 12:43 am)Drich Wrote: Seriously? you are completely waisting my time. is this the first time you have read Mat 23? I have quoted from it three times now, and three times you denied it's message. Now that I post what you have denied your response is

Quote:"finally you are trying to provide examples of your moral code?"

This means you did not know the content of the message you have denied three times.

I honestly thought you were worth the effort but you have proven me to be a fool. a mistake I will not make again anytime soon. i must shake the dust from my feet and let my peace return to me and move on to someone who truly has an interest.

As far as I am concerned the message and the efforts i have put into this conversation are yours to do with as you will, but know my efforts here are at an end with you.

Notice my use of the word "trying". I'm still denying the content of the message because the content does not sat what you claim it does. You are indicating that it provides definition for righteousness as distinguished from self-righteousness and it does not do that. Maybe I should have been clearer. You are still failing at providing what you set out to do - a biblical distinction between morality and righteousness. All you have done is provide evidence that even the bible thinks that they mean the same thing. Oh wait, I did point that out.

If you want to chicken out of the debate, go ahead. But don't blame it on me. I'll continue watching this thread and keep pointing out any other errors that you keep making.

Maybe I should have been clearer. YOU DID NOT READ Mat 23 Before i posted it, Yet you denied it relevance 3 times in your past posts.

This means you are waisting my time. Time that i could use to help someone who has a serious interest.