(December 5, 2013 at 12:19 pm)apophenia Wrote:


"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"
~ Anton Chigurh

20 because no one can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows us our sin.
~The Apstole Paul Romans 3

---

(December 5, 2013 at 12:33 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Does God do anything?

yes

Quote:If so, what directs the way God does in fact act?

According to His expressed will.

Quote: Clearly, it's going to be based on what God thinks is good.

no.Actually it is not a yes or no matter. Because what is 'good' Describes what God does. Being the alpha and Omega means He is the standard in which all things are measured. That means there is not a standard in which to measure God against that means anything other than What He Himself does.

Quote:That is morality, there is no escaping it, save for not understanding what language is, because that's the concept that the word 'morality' refers to.

ah, no. God's 'Morality' is based off of His unchanging Will for us. Which means God's 'morality' is different from yours because yours changes.

Quote:God and you appealing to God's nature as being what goodness is, is just a value judgement. Assuming God exists (you haven't even tried to do that as far as I know), why does God think himself to be good?

God is the defination of 'good' because This is His creation and He set the standard.

Quote:Further, the fact that God apparently views himself to be the only is irrelevant to what is actually good,

Ah, i see your problem. Please answer my questions. If God is not an absolute standard of good, then what is that standard? Standard as being defined as: something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.

For in order to judge something good or not good one must have a system of rule or measure to weigh the variable against. So again what standard can one use to judge God?

Now keep in mind a standard is meaningless unles those who use it have the ablity to stand behind it and enforce it.. So again how can you without an enfoceable standard determine whether or not God is good or bad?

---

(December 5, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Tonus Wrote: Yes. I am pointing out a significant flaw in the one you used.

That is not the purpose of an analogy.
So your answer should be no. You do not understand the purpose of an analogy. Which disqualifies you from trying to dismiss what you do not understand.

Drich Wrote:Using a parent/Child analogy in this instance compares God's Authority to dictate rules to his children that may not apply to Himself. The content of the rules and how they apply to our social structure is not being examined, because it does not apply unless one first accepts the authority of God.

Quote:But neither exists in a vacuum. If you are going to make the comparison, I think it bears noting where it breaks down.

The analogy stands, because one can rightly assume if you do not know how or why an analogy is used you will not be able to properly identify if it viable or not. Therefore you are not in a position to tell me where it "breaks down."

Drich Wrote:what are you talking about? Have you never read the parable of the prodigal son?

Quote:The prodigal son could have formed an army, marched to his father's home and taken it by force, killing any who barred his path, including his father. Humans cannot do this to god.

how old are you?
When adults talk we try and stay on topic and with in the confines of an established story and stay on point so as to not seem overwhelmed or foolish.

Quote:A flawed concept remains flawed regardless of who originates it.

As we have already established you are not in a position to identify flaws.

Drich Wrote:Not by our deeds, which is why Christ died. Because He died and we accept why He died we can take on the 'perfection' of Christ. When I stand before God my sin and short commings are not seen. Chirst's works are seen in place of mine. Therefore I become perfect as He is perfect to the Father.

Quote:When Jesus said those words (Matthew 5:48) he was specifically referring to individual thoughts and deeds (Matthew 5:1-47). I don't see a context in which he would have been referring to his ransom sacrifice.

.... and the indivisual thoughts and deed as Per Chirst in Mat 5:17-20 Cover the Whole Law which covers the Whole of the Human experience.

Quote:I would hope not, considering how he treats his children!

again not all are His children

Quote:Oh. So he's either the loving father or the abusive step-father? That's almost a slight improvement, I suppose.

No. one is a Child of God or lost to God. Again pointing back to the prodigal son, the Son dis owns his father which means it makes him a stranger.
If you are not a Child of God then you have no affiliation with Him.
Jesus illustrated with the parable of wheat and weeds. The wheat and weeds/tares grow together. (Tares look like wheat but do not produce an ediable grain) Durning the Harvest (judgement) the wheat will be seperated from the tares and taken into the store house while the tares/weeds will be thrown into the fire. Christ tells several stories like this one seperating those who belong to God and those who do not.

again not all are God's Children and therefore will not benefit from Him.

Quote:God massacred a lot of people in the Bible,

So?

Quote:and it does not appear as if all (or even most) of them were seeking to harm his children.

lol examples?

Quote:Some were simply defending themselves from invasion by those children, and not the other way around. .

like?

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: This very concept is what eventually lead to jews being put into camps, Indians on reservations, the trail of tears, the civil war, all Japanese Americans into camps, and every other 'morally justified' act we as a soceity of people have morally justified. Because there aren't any absolutes, we are free to lower the bar any time we deem it nesesary, or when ever it is benfits us to do so. (abortion)

Wrong. The bar of objective morality cannot be lowered on a whim or by necessity. It has to be justified rationally. As a matter of fact a lot of events here were the result of applying your god's morality.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: All of man's morality is based on selecting the lessor of two evils, or even seeks justification to select the greater evil when we can justify our want. With out an absolute or never changing standard one can not possiably know how far his morality has fallen. For like with the death camp Nazis, Abortion doctors, whatever evil you elect to live with is your new upper bar. If you feel you can justify your deeds then nothing you do will ever be wrong. Which is why there were men who could send 100's of scared people into gas chambers at a time. This is what 'morality' looks like with out an absolute standard to compare it to.

No, that's what morality looks like when people mistakenly believe there is an absolute standard.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you have an example of a 'subjective whim?' What makes God's command subjective or a whim?

The fact that it is subject to his desires and that no rational basis for his commands is given indicates that his supposed morality is nothing more than his subjective whims.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: That's my point! In your value system ANYTHING Can Be Rationalized!!! Which means anything good or bad can be accepted like wise anything true good, or bad can be vilified! For example the righteous command to not have Gay sex is now vilified, while something as truly monsterous like killing babies (after they been de-humanized and labled fetuses) is celibrated.

There is a big difference in "ratioanilizing something" and something "being rational". Specifically, if you have to try and rationalize it, it isn't rational to begin with. And the irrational - like your god's commands - cannot be rationalized. For example, the irrational command to subvert a person's freedom and autonomy by preventing him from having sex with whoever he desires (and who desires him back) or to continue histing a parasite within her body were truly monstrous and could not be rationalized no matter how hard the bible-thumpers try. Which is why, eventually, the rational standard of allowing both has to come into force.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: I have not redefined anything. i have simply pointed out the differences between what this soceity defines as morality and what God had orginally outlined. I use different terms only to avoid confusion. In the end man is the one who has redefined 'morality' and the fact that God's standard is absolute and has not changed, proves that man is the one who is changing things.

Except, you are making up differences where none exist - your god's standard falls squarely within the bounds of morality. The real difference between society's morality and your god's morality is that, by and large, society's morality tends to be sane, rational and directed towards specific goals - while your god's morality is insane and irrational.

Also, you have any proof that your god's morality came first?

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Which again shows you that YOU are the one who has redefined 'morality.' Which is why I use a different word.

No, it shows me that your pathetic attempts at redefinition aren't working.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Which-Is-Why-Jesus-said-to-The-Pharisees- that- their-practices-in-'morality'-was-only-washing-the-OUTSIDE-of-the-cup. He means your actions only affect how others view you, while your insides can still remain unclean. For instances, Abortion has become a woman's 'moral' right to choose what to do with 'her body.' This act of 'morality' is an example of washing the outside of one's cup. because it is acceptable to all who see it, but on the inside one has to make the desision to justify the taking of a human life.

Which-is-why-Jesus-was-talking-out-of-his-ass. Intentions, by themselves, do not affect reality. Actions do. They are the inside of the cup which remain significant while "intentions" are just window-dressing. For instance, abortion has become a woman's 'moral' right to choose. This act of morality is like washing the inside of the cup because it indicates actual respect for female autonomy instead of just lip-service about how much women are respected within religion while being treated as livestock.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: not even close. When God shifted the focous from what you do to why you do it the 'internal' reason is what get merrit while the external (what people can see and judge) takes a back seat.

What a person does is what actually matters because that is what affects the reality of his existence. That is the inside of the cup because that is what affects the quality of the tea in it. The intentions are the outside because they are not going to affect the tea no matter how clean they are.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: AGAIN, It is not 'WE' who 'fix it.' God 'fixes' it through attonement.

Thus defeating the purpose of his own morality.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Not a rule an observation. If you read the bible it clearly shows over and over God working with people on their level with something they can understand. When God takes things into his own hands (and we can not comprhend what is going on) we get explainations like what is found in the book of revelation.

If its not a rule, then your argument of god being bound to act by human standards fails completely.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: We also 'HAVE' God's expressed will in His law, which is found in the bible.

Something which you admit as being meaningless - given that you are not required to abide by it.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: oh, but i do.

Which is why your position is illogical.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: ah, on. To you want to try again?
Your arguement fails because 'we' have our laws our 'morality,' and whether you accept it or not we also have God's laws. God has proven over thousands of years that he can and will work with us with what He has given us through scripture, and He has shown us that He will not work with those who hold to their own 'morality' over His own.

And if he chooses to work with us then he is subject to our morality. That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: http://atheistforums.org/thread-22249-page-6.html
post #53

I see fetuses being aborted - no babies.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Just in case your still confused: mat 23:25 “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.

The outside are the 'moral acts everyone can see.' The Inside are the desires of the heart and true reasons you do something.

The anaology is use to illustrate that 'good deeds' are meaningless without value to God with out the right reasons behind them. and attonement says sin it without value to God as well. Everything hings on the reason why you do what you do and not the stuff 'good or bad' (or what you think is good or bad.) That is why the cup anaology is used.

And since the purpose of morality is what you do and not the intentions behind it, the analogy fails.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: If He did elimate all of us then who is having this discussion?

He supposedly eliminated most.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you have 'proof' of this self aggrandization?

Your theology.


Also, you still haven't addressed the points I made in my previous post. Once again, pretending you've answered them doesn't work here.

---

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: no.Actually it is not a yes or no matter. Because what is 'good' Describes what God does.

Only within the context of his own morality. Which is precisely what makes is subjective.

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Being the alpha and Omega means He is the standard in which all things are measured. That means there is not a standard in which to measure God against that means anything other than What He Himself does.

Reality disagrees. Given that we have many other moralities by which we measure your god and find him sorely lacking.

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: ah, no. God's 'Morality' is based off of His unchanging Will for us. Which means God's 'morality' is different from yours because yours changes.

Its also different because mine is rational, based on reality and makes sense, while your god's morality is irrational and insane.

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: God is the defination of 'good' because This is His creation and He set the standard.

That's what he says.
Actually, that's what you say he says.
Not buying it. At either level - that this is his creation or that that means he gets to set the standard.

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Ah, i see your problem. Please answer my questions. If God is not an absolute standard of good, then what is that standard? Standard as being defined as: something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.

To begin with, there doesn't need to be an absolute standard.
Secondly, an authority is not necessary to establish a standard if it is based on something objective - existence of day and night to measure time.
Thirdly, any "standard of good" is, by definition, morality. So the idea of god being the standard is nonsensical.

Finally, given the rational premises required for existence of morality, one of the measures of good would be allowance of freedom and autonomy - an account on which your god fails miserably.

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: For in order to judge something good or not good one must have a system of rule or measure to weigh the variable against. So again what standard can one use to judge God?

Answered.

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Now keep in mind a standard is meaningless unles those who use it have the ablity to stand behind it and enforce it.. So again how can you without an enfoceable standard determine whether or not God is good or bad?

Wrong. Enforcement is not necessary for the standard to be meaningful. After all, e judge fictional characters like your god according to moral standards and no one pretends that enforcement there is possible. The purpose of a standard is to facilitate judgement - not enforcement.

(December 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: Wrong. The bar of objective morality cannot be lowered on a whim or by necessity. It has to be justified rationally. As a matter of fact a lot of events here were the result of applying your god's morality.

The end result through whim, necessity, or justification through rationality is still change is it not? If 'morality is subject to change then all a people need do is justify a need through the perscribed channel. Hitler's Germany made changes to rational through the means of propaganda. So, What makes you think this soceity is ammune to propaganda that people deem things like IDK killing babies a 'rational' thing to do?

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: All of man's morality is based on selecting the lessor of two evils, or even seeks justification to select the greater evil when we can justify our want. With out an absolute or never changing standard one can not possiably know how far his morality has fallen. For like with the death camp Nazis, Abortion doctors, whatever evil you elect to live with is your new upper bar. If you feel you can justify your deeds then nothing you do will ever be wrong. Which is why there were men who could send 100's of scared people into gas chambers at a time. This is what 'morality' looks like with out an absolute standard to compare it to.

Quote:No, that's what morality looks like when people mistakenly believe there is an absolute standard.

can you viably demonstrate this using any historical examples? Or are you just trying to shift the burden of proof?

Quote:The fact that it is subject to his desires and that no rational basis for his commands is given indicates that his supposed morality is nothing more than his subjective whims.

Define 'rational basis.' What would be an example of God creating some standard irrationally? Verses what you consider a ration reason for the creation of a standard.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: That's my point! In your value system ANYTHING Can Be Rationalized!!! Which means anything good or bad can be accepted like wise anything true good, or bad can be vilified! For example the righteous command to not have Gay sex is now vilified, while something as truly monsterous like killing babies (after they been de-humanized and labled fetuses) is celibrated.

Quote:There is a big difference in "ratioanilizing something" and something "being rational".

No there is not. The only difference between the rational and having to rationalize something is Extremely trivial. In that the rational is accepted by pop culture, and having to rationalize something is having to find a reason to do something even though it may be taboo to pop culture. Cultures change from social classes to regional groupings or even from generation to generation. 'Rational' is a soft standard that leaders use to manipulate sheep.

Quote:Specifically, if you have to try and rationalize it, it isn't rational to begin with. And the irrational - like your god's commands - cannot be rationalized. For example, the irrational command to subvert a person's freedom and autonomy by preventing him from having sex with whoever he desires (and who desires him back) or to continue histing a parasite within her body were truly monstrous and could not be rationalized no matter how hard the bible-thumpers try. Which is why, eventually, the rational standard of allowing both has to come into force.

Ah, no.. Where did you get this?

The reason Gay sex is forbidden is because it undermines the paradyme God establishes for us to express the different forms of love we are privy to. Through roles assoceiated by gender, and age. God has us play these roles as Father Son Mother daughter so we can have a better understanding of Him, The church, and each other. This will ultimatly helps us connect, respect, interact and love Him in an approperate way. This understanding is key for our seeking salvation and eternal life.

Take away these roles and even the most basic understanding of God is no longer possiable, dooming an indivisual to eternal seperation from God.

God does not care if we are plagued with parasites when our eternal future hangs in the balance.

Rational enough? God forbidding temporary self indulgence in exchange for the tools one needs to seek eternal life?

Quote:Except, you are making up differences where none exist - your god's standard falls squarely within the bounds of morality.

Again it doesn't Because (now take the time to read this, this next part ends your arguement) God's morality has NOTHING To Do With our works.

Do you understand what i mean by this? keep reading

Quote:The real difference between society's morality and your god's morality is that, by and large, society's morality tends to be sane, rational and directed towards specific goals - while your god's morality is insane and irrational.

Again no. Soceity's morality is works based. One is deemed moral or immoral by his or her acts. God's righteousness/morality has nothing to do with what we do. It is attonement based.

Quote:Also, you have any proof that your god's morality came first?

yes, do you have proof that it didn't?

Quote:No, it shows me that your pathetic attempts at redefinition aren't working.

If you can not see a vast difference between what God has established verses what you consider moral Your either being obstinate or your just plain stupid. you can not fegin ignorance at this point because I have taken the time to point you to Darkstar's thread where i explain this, and have directly explained this to you 3 or 4 times now.

Quote:Which-is-why-Jesus-was-talking-out-of-his-ass. Intentions, by themselves, do not affect reality. Actions do.

Let's try this. You have acknoweledged the difference between God's righteousness and your own morality in the above quote. You said that your morality was based on actions, and at the same time acknoweledge that Jesus said it was based on 'intentions' (which is not accurate, but for this discussion proves a seperation) between what you call moral and what God indenifies as moral/true righteousness.

Now given what you just said will you now conceed this point that God's 'morality/righteousness' and what you see as morality is completely different?

If your pride isn't pulling your obstinance strings may we proceed in calling God's "Heart based morality" God's Righteousness, and what you understand to be works based morality as 'man's morality or even just morality?



Before we proceed we must come to this understanding first.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: The end result through whim, necessity, or justification through rationality is still change is it not? If 'morality is subject to change then all a people need do is justify a need through the perscribed channel.

The difference being it is not possible to rationally justify any and every arbritrary change.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Hitler's Germany made changes to rational through the means of propaganda.

That's not a change through rational means.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: So, What makes you think this soceity is ammune to propaganda that people deem things like IDK killing babies a 'rational' thing to do?

It isn't immune - yet. But its getting there. Once we eliminate this irrationality called Christianity, we'll be closer to not accepting any and every ridiculous proposition as 'rational'.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: can you viably demonstrate this using any historical examples? Or are you just trying to shift the burden of proof?

Sure. Hilter believed he was working according to the absolute standards of your god. In fact, most of the similar horrific acts are committed under that belief.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Define 'rational basis.'

A basis found in reality and compatible with the premises required for the existence of morality.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: What would be an example of God creating some standard irrationally?

His morality.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Verses what you consider a ration reason for the creation of a standard.

There are no verses that I consider as the rational reason for creation of his standard - which is why I regard it as irrational.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: No there is not. The only difference between the rational and having to rationalize something is Extremely trivial. In that the rational is accepted by pop culture, and having to rationalize something is having to find a reason to do something even though it may be taboo to pop culture. Cultures change from social classes to regional groupings or even from generation to generation. 'Rational' is a soft standard that leaders use to manipulate sheep.

This failure to understand the significant difference between the rational and the rationalized is precisley what I'd expect from a Christian sheep uneducated in logic. Simply finding an arbitrary reason is not sufficient to make something rational - that reason has to be validated through logic or brute facts. Ignorance of this difference is what leads people to try and follow the irrational standards setup by your supposed god.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Ah, no.. Where did you get this?

The reason Gay sex is forbidden is because it undermines the paradyme God establishes for us to express the different forms of love we are privy to. Through roles assoceiated by gender, and age. God has us play these roles as Father Son Mother daughter so we can have a better understanding of Him, The church, and each other. This will ultimatly helps us connect, respect, interact and love Him in an approperate way. This understanding is key for our seeking salvation and eternal life.

Take away these roles and even the most basic understanding of God is no longer possiable, dooming an indivisual to eternal seperation from God.

God does not care if we are plagued with parasites when our eternal future hangs in the balance.

Thus perfectly demonstrating my point about how rationalizing something doesn't make it rational.

The reasons given here are arbitrary. They have not been validated through logic or evidence. Which is why, despite your efforts to rationalize god's morality, it remains irrational.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Rational enough? God forbidding temporary self indulgence in exchange for the tools one needs to seek eternal life?

Not even close. Whimsically dictating rules and roles goes against the basic premise of morality - which is autonomy. That itself is sufficient to make your god's morality irrational. Apart form that, there is the fact that your wild claims here have not been validated, so they weren't in the contention of being rational to begin with.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Again it doesn't Because (now take the time to read this, this next part ends your arguement) God's morality has NOTHING To Do With our works.

Do you understand what i mean by this? keep reading

Morality is not defined by whether or not it values your works, it is defined by whether or not it dictates it - and your god's morality does. The difference that you are trying to "make up" is that negating the value of works (an irrational proposition for a morality) somehow exempts your god's morality from being a morality. It doesn't.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Again no. Soceity's morality is works based. One is deemed moral or immoral by his or her acts. God's righteousness/morality has nothing to do with what we do. It is attonement based.

And that is what makes society's morality a candidate for a sane and rational morality while it excludes your god's morality from being one.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: yes, do you have proof that it didn't?

Sure. Humans were moral long before your bible came into existence.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: If you can not see a vast difference between what God has established verses what you consider moral Your either being obstinate or your just plain stupid. you can not fegin ignorance at this point because I have taken the time to point you to Darkstar's thread where i explain this, and have directly explained this to you 3 or 4 times now.

Oh, I see a BIG difference between what your god has established as morality and what I regard as moral. But your redefinition is not about that. Its about redefining god's morality as something else altogether.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Let's try this. You have acknoweledged the difference between God's righteousness and your own morality in the above quote. You said that your morality was based on actions, and at the same time acknoweledge that Jesus said it was based on 'intentions' (which is not accurate, but for this discussion proves a seperation) between what you call moral and what God indenifies as moral/true righteousness.

If you think you can slip in your attempt at redefinition unnoticed, try doing a better job of it.

I'll acknowledge that there is a big difference between your supposed god's morality and my morality. What I call moral/true righteousness is not what your supposed god supposedly regards as moral/true righteousness. But that has been my position from the beginning - given my repeated statements regarding how mine is sane and rational and your god's is insane and irrational.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Now given what you just said will you now conceed this point that God's 'morality/righteousness' and what you see as morality is completely different?

Wrong. There is a BIG difference, but they are not completely different.

If a body of concepts/rules dictate human actions and classify human intentions as desirable/undesirable then that is referred to as morality.

Whether or not acting according to the concepts is ultimately regarded as significant or not is irrelevant. Given this point of common origin, your god's morality and my morality fall under the same category. If you want to redefine morality as righteousness, then you must likewise refer to my morality as righteousness as well.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: If your pride isn't pulling your obstinance strings may we proceed in calling God's "Heart based morality" God's Righteousness, and what you understand to be works based morality as 'man's morality or even just morality?

No.

And its not pride, its semantic integrity. Reclassifying you god's morality as god's righteousness is the first step in bait-and-switch you intend to perpetrate. Your intention here could not be more clear: "If god's morality is not, in fact, a form of morality, then it cannot be held to the same standards we regard other moral systems with and therefore, somehow ends up being above them all. If it does not belong to the same category of ideas, then the standards applicable to that category do not apply to god's morality. Therefore, there can be no way to scrutinize, evaluate and judge god's morality - or, as it has been redefined - righteousness."

Right now, you fail at the first step - establishing your god's morality as something of a different category.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Before we proceed we must come to this understanding first.

Contrary to what you might think, I've understood you from the beginning. And I'm not buying your bullshit.

(December 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Drich Wrote: According to His expressed will.

That's not answering the question because that's true and trivial of ALL sentient things. What directs what God chooses to do? I already know the answer, but I'm waiting for you to give it.

Quote:no. Actually it is not a yes or no matter. Because what is 'good' Describes what God does. Being the alpha and Omega means He is the standard in which all things are measured. That means there is not a standard in which to measure God against that means anything other than What He Himself does.

Er, no. 'Doing good' is YOUR description of what God does. Being the 'Alpha and Omega' has no bearing on this (aside from being a bare assertion) because then God is just doing things based on HIS preferences and values. And there's nothing wrong with that in principle, because it's true of EVERYTHING that has consciousness, including God (if he exists). Reason alone has no emotive power, this has been known for centuries, thanks to David Hume. What you do necessarily will depend on what you are and what you value, and reason comes in as a way of determining how best to. To say otherwise is incoherent. It's like saying you can have an opinion without having preferences.

Quote:ah, no. God's 'Morality' is based off of His unchanging Will for us. Which means God's 'morality' is different from yours because yours changes.

So you've basically just agreed with me unwittingly, or tried to throw up a smokescreen to disguise that. You just said that God's morality is based off of his unchanging will (which are his actions founded in his values, like us), only with the irrelevant caveat that they don't change. Big woop. Values are by definition subjective, regardless of it they're God's values.

Quote:God is the defination of 'good' because This is His creation and He set the standard.

Again, YOU'RE definition of good, not mine (for example).
Creating something doesn't make you the decidor of if it is or becomes the standard. Acceptance of the 'standard' can never be binding, because it's an OPINION. Does a yard have to be what it is? Did God HAVE to think that he was the standard of goodness? No on both accounts and for the same reason: value judgements and arbitrariness.

Quote:Ah, i see your problem. Please answer my questions. If God is not an absolute standard of good, then what is that standard? Standard as being defined as: something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.

There is no 'absolute standard' of good, necessarily. And the reason for that has already been laid out: That all standards are predicated on one's values and choices, and could never be rooted in reason alone.

And you're contradicting yourself here. Your own definition refers to a standard being something set up, hence assuming (correctly) that the standard didn't exist before it was setup, and was therefore created. Under your own view of God as timeless and changeless, he could never have set himself up as the standard of goodness because he always existed, so the word can't even apply to him. Please, get your theology straight.

Quote:For in order to judge something good or not good one must have a system of rule or measure to weigh the variable against. So again what standard can one use to judge God?

One must have a standard yes, but standards - much less moral ones, or ones relating to goodness - can never be 'absolute'. And one can measure their own standard of gooodness against God. Heh, you've already admitted that God essentially does the exact same thing to us, so your preference for God's is nothing more than - another- value judgment, hence subjective.

Quote:Now keep in mind a standard is meaningless unles those who use it have the ablity to stand behind it and enforce it.. So again how can you without an enfoceable standard determine whether or not God is good or bad?

Standards are meaningful so long as people hold to them, not all standards need 'enforcement'. That's hardly coherent when dealing with non-moral standards. Do the standards of temperature need to be enforeced? Is that even intelligible?

Again, if under my standard God (assuming he exists) is evil/immoral, then that's what he is. You're not even applying your own definitons correctly.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

(December 3, 2013 at 11:03 pm)Darkstar Wrote: This is probably correct to some extent, but again, this wouldn't mean it was moral.

This is only true IF you have an absolute unchanging standard in which to judge by. Otherwise right and wrong become subjective to the whims popular culture.

Okay. But, from this it does not immediately follow that the laws in the Bible serve as a good standard.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Here is the recurring and fundamental disagreement I keep seeing. You keep asserting that the 'righteousness' found in the Bible is an absolutely perfect moral yardstick. If this were even remotely true, your argument would be valid. But it isn't even remotely true.

Here is where you are wrong. I have said over and over what is in the bible has ABSOLUTLY Nothing to do with 'morality.' What is in the bible establishes a fixed point concerning God's righteousness.

Sigh. *Righteous* yardstick, then?

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: It happened with the Nazis

Quote:If lying is always wrong, should you admit to knowing where Jews were hidden?

No. Why? Because in God's economy 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with our acts anymore. Rather our acts hold no value in of themselves. This is what seperates God Righteousness from man's 'moral' soceity.

Then what use it this so called righteousness if it has nothing to do with our actions?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: A lie, a Murder, giving to the poor, helping or even 'Healing' people means nothing by itself. What asigns value to these acts "Good or bad" (as you understand them) is the condition of one's heart. That is what attonement means. All of your deeds are wiped out and what is left is the condition of your heart.

Whatever that means... Accepting Jesus is all that matters?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: Your 'morality' is a form of legalism that binds and defins the person by the works he does or does not do. Jesus identified this legalistic behavior in the pharisees, as 'only washing the outside of your cup. While then inside was still dirty.'

So acts mean...nothing?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Not unless literally everyone was doing it (as in, all Christians waging some sort of violent campaign against gays).

lol, this was not the case in the days weeks or even months after 9/11. Granted the religion was Islam, but the horroific events were limited to one day perpertarited by a handful of men. Now spread events like that over a few years by a few dozen radicals, but the thing is they can not be seperated from the rest of Christianity. Then what?
According to revelation something like this is comming.

What do you think will happen if you google 'religion of peace'? You don't get Christian groups calling for the execution of those who insult Jesus, do you?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:If more were to come, the government might keep a closer eye on Christian groups, but putting them in camps would be too much. Are they putting American Muslims into camps now?

We put Japanese into camps in WWII and we 'detained' some arab people right after 9/11 and held them for several days before pulling their visas and sending them home. According to my memory and the local news, Osama's brother, and his family lived near disney, and with in a day or two he was 'held' for questioning. It's my understanding that 24 hours is the limit before one has to be charged or released. He and his family was held for a year.

While that isn't the same as putting Muslims in camps, I won't deny that the US denied habeas corpus to suspected terrorists.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:And with flawed absolutes you have a broken system that can never be fixed.

You do understand the concept of attonement right? With attonement we do not have to 'fix' anything.

So you don't care that god's rulebook is flawed? Or...is that because it isn't a rulebook?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: Remember when God works with us, He works with what we have. If Genocide was the only tool that could be used to acomplish ALL of what God was trying to accomplish, then why shouldn't He use it?

He could also use magic to do something totally unorthodox. I think you are selling his omnipotence short. He sure didn't hold back against Sodom and Gomorrah.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: Your answer will be morality based. To which I will ask what authority does man's morality have over God?

He doesn't have to care...if he exists.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I think this is more of a "we don't know how that would actually affect history" thing than it is a "is it moral to kill a baby to preven the holocaust".

We kill babies by the friggen Millions every year to prevent a life style change, and yet you have questions concerning the 'morality' about killing one baby that is directly responsiable for the deaths of 60 million people?

Two things: 1. FETUS (not that arguing this back and forth will get us anywhere)
2. Where did I say I had questions about its morality? I specifically said that was not the reason for my hesitation, but rather that I could never know if killing baby Hitler would somehow cause something even worse to happen.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: This is why your 'morality' is a meaningless crap standard. You are washing the outside of your cup to maintain 'a woman's right to choose'

At least I'm washing part of my cup. You said acts don't matter, so who cares, right?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Or maybe these fetuses are all going to heaven early and he's happy?

These Babies all repersent souls/People to be put on this earth to choose their eternial destiny, just like you, I and everyone else. If these souls die before they have that chance I Believe that God simply gives them another.

So if they get reincarnated...why the outrage?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:A agree that sexualizing young kids is bad, but I don't see a lot of that.

so no TV repersenting highschoolers in provoctive outfits

Okay, I guess I have seen a little of that. I thought you were talking about twelve year olds or something.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: As for incest, I have no idea what you're talking about.

It wasn't the last Adam sandler movie maybe the one before it where the big reveal had to do with incest, last weeks south park featured an incest scene, Arrested Development has an on going 'thing' bewteen two of its characters, Boardwalk empire, Game of thrones, Dexter, Brothers and sisters, Lost, Veronica Mars, Nip tuck all have had incest as a reoccouring them or at the very least focoused an episode's plot point on the subject.

I have never actually seen any of those shows, though I have heard of most of them. I don't watch a lot of television.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: To have all of this attention and money spent to produce these instances signifies a grown trend. 'hollywood' is simply giving the people what it wants to see.

Why would people want to see that?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: better for whom? I live in a society where gay relationships are better than beating gay people. So for me now this is what is 'better.' If I lived in the other soceity where beating Gays was better then i would be inclinded to say beating them was better...

So which one would i rather live in? The one that afords me the best oppertunity to tell people about God. On one side fear of a beating may drive people from expermenting with gay sex, but on the other they could just burn inside for it, which would invalidate and 'religious' stuff they did.. As i have already pointed out is God's goal for you in not to get you to try and earn your way into heave by not doing A,B,C and doing 1,2,3 God wants your heart.

So you should at least try to follow god's absolute standard, to show him you care, and even if you fail, you're still saved...right? Or is that not it? I keep getting the impression that you are suggesting that there is no need to even try. I don't even recall you ever trying to defend the law as legitimate (even if it doesn't need to be followed/can't be perfectly adhered to).

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: On the otherside accepting gay people means the soceity 'morals' shift in such a way as to now incorperate and justify this new life style, which will lead to the abandoment of the instutitions God established (marriage, family) and the recreation of the new gay version of it. But on the other hand there, allowing people to embrace their 'vice' will allow a great many to hit bottom, and earnestly seek God.

So which is better? I honestly don't know. I can only be faith to the reality God has placed me in and do my job.

Allowing gay marriage does not in any way dismantle marriage and family. The fact that your morality is based purely on how many people you can convert unnerves me a bit. I keep getting the "Christian serial killer goes to heaven, atheist philanthropist goes to hell" vibe from you. You would really prefer a society in which gays were violently persecuted if it helped spread you religion?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I suppose if by 'standard' you meant 'the standard by which people are judged, post Jesus' then it would be correct. But Jesus also noted the importance of the laws. I realize that you say that following the laws is not necessary (as it is impossible), but you can still be saved if you accept Jesus. Yet, you use the laws as a standard by which to judge human morality (not that the Bible isn't technically human morality as well). And I agree with neither the laws (well, not all of them, anyway), nor the idea of an absolute standard for so many specific rules.

Do you now understand what I am talking about when I say God's righteousness is not based off the works your/man's morality is?

Not really, no. Do you mean:
A: God's righteousness is just some standard he made so we would need saving.
B: God's righteousness is a standard we should try to follow; when we inevitable fail Jesus will save us because we tried
C: God's righteousness is a perfect standard, but we shouldn't bother even trying to follow it.
D: None of the above.

The bottom line: If our acts in relation to god's righteousness do not matter, as you have claimed multiple times, then why do you bother condemning abortion?

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: God's 'morality/righteousness' and what you see as morality is completely different?

How does one locate and identify God's Morality? It cannot be located in the bible because the god of the bible is a stolen God. And those moral teachings found in the bible are not original to the bible itself. We can find these moral teachings in cultures that predate the ancient Israelites. We can find great flood tales, virgin saviors, and garden of creation tales in cultures that LONG predate the Israelites. Their culture, their religion, their god is nothing more than a molestation of cultures that came before them.

That all being a fact. Where does one find a clear original example of God's idea of morality? Can you even identify who God is?

(December 5, 2013 at 5:30 pm)genkaus Wrote: The difference being it is not possible to rationally justify any and every arbritrary change.

All that is needed is circumstance and the right propaganda, and anything that was off the moral table gets put on it.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Hitler's Germany made changes to rational through the means of propaganda.

Quote:That's not a change through rational means.

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the word. As it applies here Merrium/webster: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings. What do you think the purpose of propaganda is? It is to Change fact. Fact does not have to always equal truth. a fact is a statement of belief that can be proven or disproved.

Propaganda changes fact, which then changes reason/rational accordingly. Therefore my statement rings true. Any and all 'rational' can be changed given a circumstance and the right propaganda.

Quote:It isn't immune - yet. But its getting there. Once we eliminate this irrationality called Christianity, we'll be closer to not accepting any and every ridiculous proposition as 'rational'.

Explain, how so?

Quote:Sure. Hilter believed he was working according to the absolute standards of your god. In fact, most of the similar horrific acts are committed under that belief.

Not correct what you have relayed is atheist propaganda. which has help change your rational, and beliefs in the legitmacy of Christianity. See how that works?

Back on topic: Hitler started out using the church and paralelled his message with the church to win favor with church goers, once he came to power and started straying from the absolutes in the bible He bann Church/religion for all of his officers, and regulated/changed the church to reflect nazi beliefs for everyone else. (He tried to use the church but it backfired and the absolutes found in the church turned the people against Him.) so it was bann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesiz...rint.shtml
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/hi...h0033.html
Here is the actual Nazi letter seperating Germany/Nazis from the established church and calling for attendance is a state sponcered version:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim5.htm
Here is a letter declaring that Nazi officals/officers leave the church. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/koehler.htm

Why? Because Nazi doctrine seperated itself from God's righteousness, and anyone looking to serve God would see the difference and condemn the acts of the state. Hitler was trying to do in a dictatorship what this generation has already done in 'freedom.' Remove absolutes from man's morality so he could have complete control over the hearts and minds of the german people. This soceity is ripe for that kind of control. All that is needed is a catlyst and a leader, and the fourth reich will begin.

Quote:My Morality is not defined by whether or not it values your works, it is defined by whether or not it dictates it - and your god's morality does. The difference that you are trying to "make up" is that negating the value of works (an irrational proposition for a morality) somehow exempts your god's morality from being a morality. It doesn't.

There i fixed your statement. Now that it reads correctly can you at least acknoweledge a difference between your morality and God's?

Quote:Sure. Humans were moral long before your bible came into existence.

I asked for Proof, not a statement requiring faith.

Quote:Oh, I see a BIG difference between what your god has established as morality and what I regard as moral. But your redefinition is not about that. Its about redefining god's morality as something else altogether.

I have not redefined anything i am simply illustrating a contrast between the two versions.

Quote:If you think you can slip in your attempt at redefinition unnoticed, try doing a better job of it.

Maybe you do not know the difference between redefining something and the seperation of the two versions which is what I done here.

To redefine is to change the meaning so it applies to the whole/every application of the word. Two draw contrast in this instance is to seperate two distinct standards from one another so as to not confuse one standard with the other each time the word is used.

I did this from the beginning by calling man's morality morality simply because you all have adopted the word to fit your perceived 'good deeds.'

I labled God's requirements Righteousness because the two words an synomns, with enough distinction to seperate two seperate ideologies.

Quote:I'll acknowledge that there is a big difference between your supposed god's morality and my morality. What I call moral/true righteousness is not what your supposed god supposedly regards as moral/true righteousness. But that has been my position from the beginning

The reason I identify God's morality/righteousness as "True" is because that is the Only Standard that we will be judged by. Anyone following man's 'morality' will be cast into Hell along with his prized standard. That Makes God's standard a True standard. In that He has the final word by which souls are measured.

---

(December 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: That's not answering the question because that's true and trivial of ALL sentient things. What directs what God chooses to do? I already know the answer, but I'm waiting for you to give it.

His Will Directs God to do what He does. God is not controled by a set of rules. The rules reflect what God does. (What you think you know, is backwards) for if God was subject to a standard of right and wrong, then that would mean God is not the Alpha and Omega. The Term means He is the first and last word/authority on all things. Meaning if God saw fit to have us kill and eat our first born, the rules of right and wrong would change to accept His will. Again that is what it is to be Alpha and Omega. There are no rules or standards above Him. He is the orgin of all rules and standards.

Quote:Er, no. 'Doing good' is YOUR description of what God does.

No. The bible says Whatever God does is considered to be 'Good.' The difference? "doing good" subjugates the do gooder to the rules of 'good.' while If you Are the standard of Good then everything you do no matter what it is becomes 'good.'

For example if God does 'good' then there is a paradox with what God did to Job and smashing babies against the rock. Now conversly if God is the standard of good then what happened to Job and the babies against rocks Becomes a 'good' act.

Quote:So you've basically just agreed with me unwittingly, or tried to throw up a smokescreen to disguise that. You just said that God's morality is based off of his unchanging will (which are his actions founded in his values, like us), only with the irrelevant caveat that they don't change. Big woop. Values are by definition subjective, regardless of it they're God's values.

If this is true then you surly must have a biblical example of God's values changing...

Quote:There is no 'absolute standard' of good, necessarily.

In your system of belief in man's morality no of course their isn't if there were it would not be subject to change.

which is the very point of the thread. thank you.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Sure. Humans were moral long before your bible came into existence.

I asked for Proof, not a statement requiring faith.

How about the Code of Hammurabi? It predates your bible and the Israelite culutre. It's got little ditties in it that you might recognize like...

"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone."

"If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death."

Just a few there. But it can be clearly seen that the laws Attributed to Moses were taken from other cultures that predate the Israelites. Choosing to be ignorant of this fact brings no credence to the integrity of your bible.

---

The word SATAN in ancient sanskrit (FAR Older than the bible mind you) means "Truth".

Jusaism and Christianity are just attempts to steal the religion of other cultures to create their own and then demonize aspects they disagreed with. Nothing more. It's a mishmash of other culture's beliefs. The Babylonians invented the Garden of Creation. The Israelites just took it and corrupted it for their purposes. The bible is nothing but lies and half truths surrounding some historical data to give if the illusion of be accurate. But they even screwed that up from time to time.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm)Drich Wrote: His Will Directs God to do what He does. God is not controled by a set of rules. The rules reflect what God does. (What you think you know, is backwards) for if God was subject to a standard of right and wrong, then that would mean God is not the Alpha and Omega. The Term means He is the first and last word/authority on all things. Meaning if God saw fit to have us kill and eat our first born, the rules of right and wrong would change to accept His will. Again that is what it is to be Alpha and Omega. There are no rules or standards above Him. He is the orgin of all rules and standards.

And yet again, we get on the "Drich avoids the question" ride. What directs what God wills? If it is not what he values, then it's necessarily arbitrary and random, since he does so for NO reason at all. Can be be any less intelligible?
Are you capable on answering a question without elision and tap dancing? You aren't even applying your own definitions correctly. If God's nature were the standard, then it's the most stupid possible objection to complain that God would be subject to it. And this is where we see the true problem with people who cannot reason properly: You say stupid shit without realizing the position you've put yourself in. If God's nature is the standard, OF COURSE he's going to be 'subject' to it. It's founded IN HIMSELF.

Really? You're going with that as what being the "Alpha and Omega" entails? Prey tell how God is the last say on them? The only way out is to give your opinion that he is, to appeal to your value in other words. Even God would have to do this.

Quote:No. The bible says Whatever God does is considered to be 'Good.' The difference? "doing good" subjugates the do gooder to the rules of 'good.' while If you Are the standard of Good then everything you do no matter what it is becomes 'good.'

Firstly, why should I care that the Bible says it? Inept, ignorant human authors on the one hand, and on the other, your appeal to the Bible saying it SHOULD be considered such, which is an appeal to a value. And even your own attempt to reason here is nonsensical. "No matter what God does"? Okay, what if God decides to not be himself? Contradictory, yes, but on your view then that's good, even though only God is to be considered such.

Quote:For example if God does 'good' then there is a paradox with what God did to Job and smashing babies against the rock. Now conversly if God is the standard of good then what happened to Job and the babies against rocks Becomes a 'good' act.

Drich, we already knew your were psychotic, no need to flaunt more than you have. Further, your response makes no sense (sensing a pattern here...) If God has no reason why he does things, he is no standard of anything at all, he just does things for no reason at all. Which is another self-defeating aspect I seem to have unearthed from you.

Quote: If this is true then you surly must have a biblical example of God's values changing...

Drich, tell me where I said that God's values change? Go on, I'll wait for you to realize your blunder.

Quote:In your system of belief in man's morality no of course their isn't if there were it would not be subject to change.

which is the very point of the thread. thank you.

Oh boy Drich, realized you couldn't respond to the rest I see. No Drich, I was pointing out that even if your worldview were true, there would be no 'absolute' morality. We know you have reasoning deficiencies Drich, I'd hate for you to reveal a reading comprehension one as well...