(June 17, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Drich Wrote: Again Man's morality means nothing more than his own version of Righteousness. As God is not subject to Man's moral asperation, Man's morality is not a viable standard in which to Judge God.

So then man's morality is better than God's? Because we believe that infinite punishment for finite "crimes" is wrong? Or torturing people for eternity because they didn't choose the right religious practices in life is wrong? Or that slavery is wrong and immoral, but God was apparently all for it according to the bible?

Or maybe ancient men lived a savage existence compared to today, and the two different views of God illustrate this because God was made up by man?

(June 17, 2013 at 1:52 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: So then man's morality is better than God's?

If man is doing the judging.. However if God is doing the Judging it means nothing. It would be like a convicted felon(man) finding the judge(God) that sentenced him to death, in contempt of his court.

Quote:Because we believe that infinite punishment for finite "crimes" is wrong?

Who says they are finite? If you killed Hitler when He was a boy wouldn't your desision to kill the boy who would be Adolph Hitler change the world forever?

Quote: Or torturing people for eternity because they didn't choose the right religious practices in life is wrong?

Who says you will be tortured for eternity? The bible simply say Hell is forever. It does not say we will be in that place. Most accounts have us consumed by the fires of Hell.

Quote: Or that slavery is wrong and immoral, but God was apparently all for it according to the bible?

That's because the act of slavery in of itself is not wrong. All acts in of themselves hold no intrinsic value to God. What makes something wrong is God saying do not do, and we do.

Quote:Or maybe ancient men lived a savage existence compared to today, and the two different views of God illustrate this because God was made up by man?

-or not-

(June 17, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Drich Wrote: Which means He does what He wants when He wants, which includes creation, and the end of all things.

Which makes morality derived from "what God wants" fickle and arbitrary.

(June 17, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Zarith Wrote:

(June 17, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Drich Wrote: Which means He does what He wants when He wants, which includes creation, and the end of all things.

Which makes morality derived from "what God wants" fickle and arbitrary.

I guess when you create, you have that right. After all who is going to call God on it?

(June 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 17, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Zarith Wrote: Which makes morality derived from "what God wants" fickle and arbitrary.

I guess when you create, you have that right. After all who is going to call God on it?

It seems we are in agreement then. Incidentally, fictitious gods also claim this right. Even you would agree that the existence of at least one fictitious god is unquestionable.

(June 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm)Zarith Wrote:

(June 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I guess when you create, you have that right. After all who is going to call God on it?

It seems we are in agreement then. Incidentally, fictitious gods also claim this right. Even you would agree that the existence of at least one fictitious god is unquestionable.

Logical Fallacy: Straw man.

(June 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm)Zarith Wrote: It seems we are in agreement then. Incidentally, fictitious gods also claim this right. Even you would agree that the existence of at least one fictitious god is unquestionable.

Logical Fallacy: Straw man.

A straw man fallacy is when you restate someone's argument in different form and then attack that version. Given that I have not restated any argument that you have made, and did not intend to do so, this can't be a straw man. I did state a proposition that I suspect you agree with, but I didn't attack it (because I agree with it too), so again, no straw man here either.

What it is, is evidence that not all gods who claim to be the source of values, are real.

Drich Wrote:Again the defination of Morality equates to little more than self righteousness.

Says the elitist on his high horse.

Quote:Meaning Morality is what you say it is.

Which, in your case, is to do with God's expressed will.

Quote: Because God is not subject to your idea of Right and wrong God can not be judged by your standard of morality.

Bzzzzt, wrong. God is supposed to be the definition of "logical" because he is truth. Therefore, your non-answer is irrelevant because I'm using known attributes to deduce what's logical.

Quote:Besides that God does not make any biblical claims to follow Man's Morality.

He's been doing it all along. The particular god complex you have constructed is based on your subjective understanding of Christian morality.

Quote:God makes the Claim that He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the END. Which means He does what He wants when He wants, which includes creation, and the end of all things.

His omniscience combined with his particular desire to have a relationship with humanity means he's robbed himself of his own free will: he knows when the best time to end the world would be, and according to his desire, it would logically be when the world has been converted to Christianity. Any other time would be in violation of his desire and also his moral perfection (as I previously mentioned), which means he knows he can't do it at any other time but the time when humanity is under one god.

(June 17, 2013 at 12:39 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: How do you reconcile being a Christian and smoking pot?

Genesis 1:29

Besides, it's highly plausible that Jesus was in fact, annointed with hemp oil.

So, does anyone have any on topic arguements or questions?