(December 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: And yet again, we get on the "Drich avoids the question" ride.

Is that like something he's known for. I was wondering why he seemed so afraid to engage me in debate.

(December 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Okay. But, from this it does not immediately follow that the laws in the Bible serve as a good standard.

Righteousness does not have anything to do with what we understand to be 'good.' Righteousness is the standard in which we must obtain (though attonement offered by Christ) to enter Heaven.

Because 'we' generally ascribe 'good' with moral behavior we can think that good people go to heaven and bad people goto Hell. The truth? There will be NO 'Good People" in Heaven at all.

This is why it is so deperatly important to seperate God's true righteousness for our own self righteous 'morality.'

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

When Paul answered this questions in the book of Romans he said we have this standard to point to our sins/short commings.

This means If we can admit to this sins/short commings (rather than justify them with morality) we are 1/2 way to accepting the attonement needed to become Truly righteous before God.

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

yes

Quote:So acts mean...nothing?

by themselves no. What makes an act good or bad before the eyes of God is the reason you do what you do.

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

It is a rule book with one purpose. To highlight that no matter our best efforts we will never be able to follow the rules to the standard need to enter Heaven.

Then it provides an alternitive.

Quote: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.

how do you know it was magic? It may have been magic to lot, but Fire, sulfer, salt all 'smell' like an eruption of somesort to me. Last I checked eruptions are apart of this world. What makes this is an act of God is the fact that God triggered it to punish a wicked people as He said He would.

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

Then if God does not care about man's judgement against Him then doesn't that make man's morality impotent? Fore a standard that can not be supported or enforced is not a standard at all.
What if i wanted to buy light bubls using a star trek unit of energy measure?
What if i demanded that light bulb manifacturers start selling bulbs rated in Cochranes rather than watts?

If I can not enforce or make an authority accept my standard then my 'standard' becomes useless.

Subsequently if God has told us that our 'morality' is meaningless to Him then why would we use it anyway?

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

Not by themselves. Acts and Heart must speak together in unison. Christ said washing the outside of the cup is foolishness. But if you wash the inside of your cup the ooutside will be cleansed as well.

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

They were never 'incarnate' to begin with so they are not 're-incarnated' We are told we are all given to Live once and die to judgement. If they did not have a chance to live then it stands to reason they will be given an oppertunity someplace else. Why the out rage?!?!? BECAUSE YOU/WE ARE STILL KILLING BABIES BY THE MILLIONS! and it is justified morally. (If not by you by the soceity in which we both live)

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.
14 is high school age. 14 is still too young even if it is not 12.

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

that still 10 instances and millions of dollars and hundreds if not thousands of mans hours spent to protray those relationships. A great effort has gone into taking the sting of incest out of our 'moral standard.'
Again this is how the gay right movement got started in the 60s and 70s with harmless jokes and trivial TV characters that everyone accepted and the boundries kept getting pushed.
Again I only use that to illustrate a point, in that in 20 years soceity will have to accept mother marrying sons or daughters or brother brother/sister brother pairings will have to be accepted as normal rational 'moral' behaivor because there are no absolutes. No way to recenter ourselves.

Quote: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.

That does not mean the rest of the nation doesn't.

Quote: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?

yes

Quote:Or is that not it? I keep getting the impression that you are suggesting that there is no need to even try.

Let's say you were not married, or attached, and you like girls. Then let's say someone way way way too go for you wants to have a relationship with you. She's rich, famous, smart, funny, __________ (fill in your own blanks) There is absolutly nothing you can offer her other than yourself and your whole being in love. Now with in this expressive love (the one thing you can offer) how would you let it manifest? Would you do thing she would like? Flowers, love notes, brush your teeth (Again fill in your own blanks to things you know she likes and wants from you)

-or do you say forget it and cheat on her, stand her up, let your breath stink/teeth fall out? (things you know she hates?)

Now do you do these things because you love this person with all that you have avaiable to you or are you trading these expressions/acts for favors/her love?

Now keep in mind there is nothing you can give her beside love to warrant her love. is Love truly in the things you do or is love the reason you do them?

If you believe love is what you do and not why you do it, then could anyone follow your examples/works and win this girls heart?

Quote: 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).

It is absolutly legitmate and every aspect of it is still in effect. Which is the reason we need attonement. After we have attonement it serves as a guideline to show us how to love God and relate to each other as God wants us to do.

Quote:Allowing gay marriage does not in any way dismantle marriage and family.

Then if it were exactly the same why does God not allow for it? God does not allow for it because in fact it is different. a Gay marriage is based off of Eros a carnal love a want or desire from a physical place. rarly does this love byitself manifest itself into the Agape need to bridge the gap between man and God. Eros philla and storge is basis traditional marriages are based off of. a measure of all three are needed for a marriage to not only last but point the couple to experience Agape, and connect with God. Even straight marriages who are only based off of eros fail and do not point to God.

Quote: The fact that your morality is based purely on how many people you can convert unnerves me a bit.

conversion has nothing to do with righteousness. No all are called to do this as a way to express love to God. i do this because I am being faithful to what God has given me.

Quote: 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?

I clearly stated that I did not know which was better. In persecution the act stops but the heart wants/yerns for it, while if it is permitted people get what they want and as with everything else in life are not happy with it either. pushing them to seek contentment full fillment some place else.

Quote: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.

B IF our hearts are in the right place.

Quote: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?

Where is the heart of a person who justifies killing a baby? Is it with the want and will of God? Is it with being faithful to the gift of life God has given you? or is it with self? how this baby will negitivly change the way you would have to live your life?

---

(December 6, 2013 at 11:38 am)I am God Wrote:

(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?

I will be happy to answer these questions again (for the 5th or 6th time in this thread) First answer this.

Define morality.

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 11:38 am)I am God Wrote: 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?

I will be happy to answer these questions again (for the 5th or 6th time in this thread) First answer this.

Define morality.

Since your game seems to be to dodge questions you don't like or answer questions with a question (Both intellectually dishonest) let's frame it in your standards.

Where would one locate an example of God's Righteousness given that the bible is a mish mash of other cultures values and beliefs molested to suit the needs of the Israelites?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Righteousness does not have anything to do with what we understand to be 'good.' Righteousness is the standard in which we must obtain (though attonement offered by Christ) to enter Heaven.

So, if I understand correctly, the laws are effectively without meaning, and accepting Jesus is all that matters?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

When Paul answered this questions in the book of Romans he said we have this standard to point to our sins/short commings.

So righteousness does tell you about right and wrong, but is technically not morality, and doesn't need to be followed to the letter. Am I understanding this correctly?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

yes

Quote:So acts mean...nothing?

by themselves no. What makes an act good or bad before the eyes of God is the reason you do what you do.

Okay, that answers my above question. So this means that committing genocide in god's name is preferable to doing good deeds in your own?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

It is a rule book with one purpose. To highlight that no matter our best efforts we will never be able to follow the rules to the standard need to enter Heaven.

But are the rules actual a good (albeit unattainable) standard on how to live, or are they just arbitrary?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: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.

how do you know it was magic? It may have been magic to lot, but Fire, sulfer, salt all 'smell' like an eruption of somesort to me. Last I checked eruptions are apart of this world. What makes this is an act of God is the fact that God triggered it to punish a wicked people as He said He would.

God is still (supposedly) omnipotent. He could just use magic if he really wanted to. How did he flood the world, for example? Where did all of that water come from?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

Then if God does not care about man's judgement against Him then doesn't that make man's morality impotent? Fore a standard that can not be supported or enforced is not a standard at all.
What if i wanted to buy light bubls using a star trek unit of energy measure?
What if i demanded that light bulb manifacturers start selling bulbs rated in Cochranes rather than watts?

If I can not enforce or make an authority accept my standard then my 'standard' becomes useless.

So more might makes right? God can force his standard on us, so that makes it legitimate? Except that he can't really force it on us. Or at least doesn't (if he exists).

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

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

They were never 'incarnate' to begin with so they are not 're-incarnated'

Okay, technically true.

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote: We are told we are all given to Live once and die to judgement. If they did not have a chance to live then it stands to reason they will be given an oppertunity someplace else. Why the out rage?!?!? BECAUSE YOU/WE ARE STILL KILLING BABIES BY THE MILLIONS! and it is justified morally. (If not by you by the soceity in which we both live)

*cough*fetus*cough*
But still, if they aren't really being lost, then what is the big deal?

(December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Drich Wrote: so no TV repersenting highschoolers in provoctive outfits

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

14 is high school age. 14 is still too young even if it is not 12.

I was thinking more like 16-18, but yeah 14 is too young IMO.

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: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?

yes

Quote:Or is that not it? I keep getting the impression that you are suggesting that there is no need to even try.

Let's say you were not married, or attached, and you like girls. Then let's say someone way way way too go for you wants to have a relationship with you. She's rich, famous, smart, funny, __________ (fill in your own blanks) There is absolutly nothing you can offer her other than yourself and your whole being in love. Now with in this expressive love (the one thing you can offer) how would you let it manifest? Would you do thing she would like? Flowers, love notes, brush your teeth (Again fill in your own blanks to things you know she likes and wants from you)

-or do you say forget it and cheat on her, stand her up, let your breath stink/teeth fall out? (things you know she hates?)

Now do you do these things because you love this person with all that you have avaiable to you or are you trading these expressions/acts for favors/her love?

Now keep in mind there is nothing you can give her beside love to warrant her love. is Love truly in the things you do or is love the reason you do them?

Both. Love can lead to sincerely heartfelt affections, but also to bitter jealousy. If you love someone, but have a funny way of showing it, they may not be so appreciative.

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: 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).

It is absolutly legitmate and every aspect of it is still in effect. Which is the reason we need attonement. After we have attonement it serves as a guideline to show us how to love God and relate to each other as God wants us to do.

But it isn't really, is it? You seem to say that intentions trump actual actions in the eyes of god. You used this as justification to lie about knowing where Jews were hiding to Nazis, even though this breaks god's rule(s) against lying. Yet, if we simply have good intentions and try to be personally good, we will fall back on human morality, something you clearly detest.

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Allowing gay marriage does not in any way dismantle marriage and family.

Then if it were exactly the same why does God not allow for it?

Because some primitive bigots made him up a few millenia ago and put those words in his mouth. ...you don't want that answer, do you?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: The fact that your morality is based purely on how many people you can convert unnerves me a bit.

conversion has nothing to do with righteousness. No all are called to do this as a way to express love to God. i do this because I am being faithful to what God has given me.

Quote: 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?

I clearly stated that I did not know which was better.

So you're at least considering that the serial killer is better?

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: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?

Where is the heart of a person who justifies killing a baby? Is it with the want and will of God? Is it with being faithful to the gift of life God has given you? or is it with self? how this baby will negitivly change the way you would have to live your life?

I suppose in the case of someone who devotes their life to the Judeo-Christian god, this logic would be sound.

(December 6, 2013 at 1:42 pm)I am God Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: And yet again, we get on the "Drich avoids the question" ride.

Is that like something he's known for. I was wondering why he seemed so afraid to engage me in debate.

Seems to be. Whenever he's asked direct, probing questions about certain nastier aspects of Christianity or areas like philosophy, he has this trange habit of sidestepping the question.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm)Drich Wrote: All that is needed is circumstance and the right propaganda, and anything that was off the moral table gets put on it.

Wrong. A rational moral system would not be changed by propaganda.

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

Wrong - you ignorant buffoon.

Go look up the definition of a fact in the dictionary.

Facts cannot be changed through propaganda. The very purpose of propaganda is to misrepresent and lie about facts. A fact is not a "statement of belief", it is a description of things as they actually are. That is why your statements are wrong - any and all 'rational' cannot be changed through propaganda.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm)Drich Wrote: Explain, how so?

That was the explanation.

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

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?

I'm not talking about my morality, you moron, I'm talking about any morality. Every morality, even your god's, dictates one's actions - that is true by definition. Whatever other differences there may be between your god's morality and my own, they are similar in that aspect

(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.

One doesn't require faith to know that humans have existed and have been acting according to one set of principles or the other long before your bible came into existence - only knowledge of history.

(December 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm)Drich Wrote: I have not redefined anything i am simply illustrating a contrast between the two versions.

You haven't redefined anything - but you are trying to. Your failure does not negate the attempt.

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

Taking two synonymous words to refer to two ideologies which are fundamentally similar and separate in content and then treating them as completely separate, thus creating an artificial distinction between those synonyms - that is your attempted redefinition.

Morality and righteousness are synonymous in the sense they both dictate what should be done. Your attempt here is to use morality to refer to "standard of behavior with focus on deeds" and use righteousness to refer to "standard of behavior as dictated by your god" - and that addendum constitutes an attempt at redefinition, albeit a pathetic one. If you truly wanted to treat those words as synonyms, then there would be no need to refer to your god's morality as anything other than your god's morality.

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

Even if that was the case - which it isn't owing to the non-existence of your god, souls or hell - that still wouldn't make your god's morality any more true than man's.

(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.

Thus perfectly demonstrating the subjective and whimsical nature of your god's morality.

---

(December 6, 2013 at 1:17 pm)I am God Wrote: The word SATAN in ancient sanskrit (FAR Older than the bible mind you) means "Truth".

Ummm... no it doesn't.

---

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Righteousness does not have anything to do with what we understand to be 'good.' Righteousness is the standard in which we must obtain (though attonement offered by Christ) to enter Heaven.

Because 'we' generally ascribe 'good' with moral behavior we can think that good people go to heaven and bad people goto Hell. The truth? There will be NO 'Good People" in Heaven at all.

This is why it is so deperatly important to seperate God's true righteousness for our own self righteous 'morality.'

A perfect example of your attempted redefinition.

(December 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm)I am God Wrote: Since your game seems to be to dodge questions you don't like or answer questions with a question (Both intellectually dishonest) let's frame it in your standards.

I am not dodging anything. I am simply establishing a base line. There can not be a productive discussion if we do not both start out on the same page.

Quote:Where would one locate an example of God's Righteousness given that the bible is a mish mash of other cultures values and beliefs molested to suit the needs of the Israelites?

The plan of salvation. (The birth, death, burial, and resurection of Christ, for the forgiveness of sin.)

Quid pro quo clarice, quid pro quo.. Now answer my question.

(December 6, 2013 at 7:44 pm)Darkstar Wrote: So, if I understand correctly, the laws are effectively without meaning, and accepting Jesus is all that matters?

No Again Paul says the purpose of the Law is to identify the need for attonement/Redemption. It's like a back stage pass at a concert. No one is allow back stage without it, but once you have it your allowed to go back stage.

Quote:So righteousness does tell you about right and wrong, but is technically not morality,

Yes

Quote: and doesn't need to be followed to the letter.

No one can earn this 'righteousness' by trying to follow the letter of the Law. It can only be given and accepted.

Quote:Am I understanding this correctly?

For the most part.

Quote:Okay, that answers my above question. So this means that committing genocide in god's name is preferable to doing good deeds in your own?

It depends on what the bible says about genocide. If we were OT Jews Yes, but Being NT Christians No. What we 'do' must still fit with in the confines of what God wants.
If God say do not murder and you kill in His name your still in sin.

Quote:But are the rules actual a good (albeit unattainable) standard on how to live, or are they just arbitrary?

They are Good according to what God wants for us.
They do not always fit the modern defination of the word 'good/moral.'

Quote:God is still (supposedly) omnipotent. He could just use magic if he really wanted to.

Indeed He could. But truthfully what is magic? Magic is only magic to those who do not know how the 'trick' was done. 2000 years ago an asprine was magic, but not so much now. One of the things we must do as believers is be willing to acknoweledge the man behind the curtain, and stop looking for the smoke and fire show. The smoke and fire isn't/should be the qualifier of a work of God. It is the fact that He can put smoke and fire (pull a lever) and make things happen.

Quote:How did he flood the world, for example? Where did all of that water come from?

From rain and well springs (beneth the ground) according to Genesis.

Quote:So more might makes right?

Absolutly

Quote: God can force his standard on us, so that makes it legitimate?

Yes!

Quote:Except that he can't really force it on us. Or at least doesn't (if he exists).

This life is not about 'forcing us' to do anything. In this life we are free to express what it is that is in our hearts. Accountablity comes after this life is over.

Quote:*cough*fetus*cough*
But still, if they aren't really being lost, then what is the big deal?

To a degree your right, Now ask yourself this when you wan to argue God's 'morality' when He gives the order to wipe out babies or has the jew wipe out a whole people if He has the power to plug them back in some other place at some other time.

So why is it wrong for us to do this? Because we are not God and we can not plug babies in some place else. Not to mention He said don't do this.

Quote:Both. Love can lead to sincerely heartfelt affections, but also to bitter jealousy.

So maybe now you can answer why God can be Jealous, if someone points out that jealousy is not a Godly trait.

Quote: If you love someone, but have a funny way of showing it, they may not be so appreciative.

We are not just talking about funny here. I am asking if you love someone will you do the things they hate? Would you cheat on them? would you put yourself before them? would you screw them over to profit on a deal of some sort? would you steal from them? Of course not. Not if you knew what it is to love, and wanted to express that to them.

Quote:But it isn't really, is it? You seem to say that intentions trump actual actions in the eyes of god. You used this as justification to lie about knowing where Jews were hiding to Nazis, even though this breaks god's rule(s) against lying. Yet, if we simply have good intentions and try to be personally good, we will fall back on human morality, something you clearly detest.

You are 100% correct, all except on my stance on morality. I am not against morality as a standard. In fact in the OP I say Morality is the measure or standard of sin we are all willing to live with. Meaning we all have a morality and it all contains some sin. Because it does, it becomes a crap standard in which to try and judge God with or even judge our selves against. If we know and understand what morality is, then we can use it to help navigate our lives. However the people on this website tend to see morality as an absolute standard in which everything is measured, which can not be the case because it is ever changing.

Quote:So you're at least considering that the serial killer is better?

I don't have the benfit of hind sight so I can not say which one is better. If that serial killer killed a patient zero in the Zombie apocalypse, or a hitler in the making or some other world wide trageity, then I do not think anyone would say from a historic pov that ther serial killer should have been stopped before hand if we absolutly knew. That is why I am content with what I have.

(December 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Where is the heart of a person who justifies killing a baby? Is it with the want and will of God? Is it with being faithful to the gift of life God has given you? or is it with self? how this baby will negitivly change the way you would have to live your life?

Quote:I suppose in the case of someone who devotes their life to the Judeo-Christian god, this logic would be sound.

Absolutly, fore if a person truly wishes to serve and worship God then it is by His standards we must yield our actions.

---

(December 6, 2013 at 9:45 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 1:42 pm)I am God Wrote: Is that like something he's known for. I was wondering why he seemed so afraid to engage me in debate.

Seems to be. Whenever he's asked direct, probing questions about certain nastier aspects of Christianity or areas like philosophy, he has this trange habit of sidestepping the question.

example?

The only time i differ is when I have already answer a given question two or three times. If your peers failed at a given point by asking the same question over and over, what makes you think you will be sucessful when you ask the same question? Especially if you have even bother to read how your peers have already tried and failed.

---

(December 9, 2013 at 2:39 am)genkaus Wrote: Wrong. A rational moral system would not be changed by propaganda.

What was America's/western europe Terrorist policy Pre-9/11?
What is it now?

Before 9/11 we activly sought to ajudicate terrorists, now we shoot them and activly hunt them down chasing them from their homes. we justified a 13 year war to do this... Not saying this was wrong or right, just showing you a fundamental change in 'morality' given circumstance and the 'right' propaganda. What is scarry is you did not even notice the huge paradyme shift in our collective morality. We went from everyone gets a day in court to villifing and dehumanizing a given people, and spending trillions of dollars to hunt them down and kill them with out a trial. "All are guilty by assoceation"

Again not making a right or wrong judgement, just pointing out a shift in 'morality' that was justified by an event and made right by propaganda (not always a negitive word. It describes a movement or idea that pushes or supports political ideals or support of a leader.) Not all propaganda is false, this may have very well been the case here. even so it is still propaganda, and you followed it blindly.

Quote:Wrong - you ignorant buffoon.

Go look up the definition of a fact in the dictionary.

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Quote:Facts cannot be changed through propaganda. The very purpose of propaganda is to misrepresent and lie about facts.

uh, no.
ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.
It does not say these 'facts' are always false. In all four definations the core undersanding of the word always centers around a goverment or political leader supplying information to control/support a given movement or thought process.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

Quote:A fact is not a "statement of belief",

Why did you quote "Statement of belief"? I did not say a fact was a statement of belief.

I said a fact is a statement that can either be prooved or disprooved.
Pluto was a planet in 1989, Now pluto is not a planet anymore. In 1989 when we taught pluto was the last planet in our solar system did it mean we were not teaching facts, rather statements of belief? or did we teach facts, and the prooving process of planetary status change, declassifying pluto from planetary status??

Quote:it is a description of things as they actually are. That is why your statements are wrong - any and all 'rational' cannot be changed through propaganda.

Is pluto a planet? was this always the case?

Quote:Taking two synonymous words to refer to two ideologies which are fundamentally similar and separate in content and then treating them as completely separate, thus creating an artificial distinction between those synonyms - that is your attempted redefinition.

Morality and righteousness are synonymous in the sense they both dictate what should be done.

That is where you are wrong. Morality is about what 'should be done.' Righteousness according to God says there is nothing you can do to acheave this standard.

Quote:Your attempt here is to use morality to refer to "standard of behavior with focus on deeds" and use righteousness to refer to "standard of behavior as dictated by your god"

Again no. If you would actually take time to read what I have been writting for 16 pages or even just read what I have been writting to you, you would know that 'Righteousness' has nothing to do with a standard of behavior.

That is why there is a need to seperate morality from God's righteousness.

(December 9, 2013 at 11:34 am)Drich Wrote: I am not dodging anything. I am simply establishing a base line. There can not be a productive discussion if we do not both start out on the same page.

Is that another way of saying no one can see it correctly unless they see it your way? That is a typical Christian view point.

Quote:The plan of salvation. (The birth, death, burial, and resurection of Christ, for the forgiveness of sin.)

But you have no evidence that can support any of these elements as you believe them. So your baseline is supposition and conjecture at best. That's hardly a place to establish concrete parameters for something as absolute as "Righteousness" the state of being perfectly and infinitely Just. You're basing it all on the ramblings of people who's identity you can't even validate, who's accounts contradict one another even though they were written one after the other, people who were not eye witnesses to what they are writing about, and have been proven to have written errors in texts that claim to be inerrant. Is this really your idea of a baseline?

Quote:Quid pro quo clarice, quid pro quo.. Now answer my question.

Morality is the principles or ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, as agreed upon by a specific culture. For example, we feel as a culture, it is immoral to impregnate a minor child. Yahweh (your God) didn't seem to think so. Nor did any of the biblical heroes that had children. As for the people... that was their culture and taking a wife the age of 12 or 13 was common. But shouldn't Yahweh be more moral than that? Or would you say it's Ok to impregnate children? Or are you going to present the age old Christian cop out that anything God does is right... just because he's God? A God for which we've already established that your "baseline" is a little sketchy. Such childish arguments would only lend less credence to anything you have to say. Jesus himself said it was better to have a mill stone hung from your neck and be cast into the sea rather than to harm a child. Seems he didn't mind too much when he was knocking up his own mother in the form of Yahweh... that is if you believe in the trinity of course.

(December 10, 2013 at 2:39 pm)I am God Wrote: Is that another way of saying no one can see it correctly unless they see it your way? That is a typical Christian view point.

without a common understanding of both view point nothing will be accomplished. i did not say you had to agree, only that you completely understand what you are attempting to intellegently discuss. Appearently in your personal version of a intellegent discussion knoweledge of the topic is frown upon.

Quote:But you have no evidence that can support any of these elements as you believe them.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Quote:So your baseline is supposition and conjecture at best. That's hardly a place to establish concrete parameters for something as absolute as "Righteousness" the state of being perfectly and infinitely Just.

This is exactly why i was looking for the defination of God's Righteousness/Morality from you. You still don't seem to understand the basic division between Man's morality and God's righteousness otherwise you would not have lead with this arguement.

Quote:Morality is the principles or ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, as agreed upon by a specific culture. For example, we feel as a culture, it is immoral to impregnate a minor child. Yahweh (your God) didn't seem to think so. Nor did any of the biblical heroes that had children. As for the people... that was their culture and taking a wife the age of 12 or 13 was common.

This is an excellent example of Man's morality.

Quote:But shouldn't Yahweh be more moral than that?

No. God's righteousness is not based on what one does.

Do you understand this so far?

Quote:Or would you say it's Ok to impregnate children? Or are you going to present the age old Christian cop out that anything God does is right... just because he's God? A God for which we've already established that your "baseline" is a little sketchy. Such childish arguments would only lend less credence to anything you have to say.

Again God's righteousness does not assign a moral value to acts. Do you understand this?
Meaning all acts are essentually netural. There are no inhearently good acts or bad acts.. It all has to do with why a person does what He does, not the act itself.

Quote:Jesus himself said it was better to have a mill stone hung from your neck and be cast into the sea rather than to harm a child. Seems he didn't mind too much when he was knocking up his own mother in the form of Yahweh... that is if you believe in the trinity of course.

Even Now at the age of 13 Jews consider Childhood to be over.