(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: No the doctrine of Christ is limited to the first four books of the NT. That said the whole bible is indeed used to describe the nature of God.

So, following the whole bible is not a requirement to be a Christian.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: That is between them and God.

Which means following the whole bible is not a requirement for them to be a Christian.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: We are all allowed to seek God our own way, however this does not mean God is bound to honor our efforts.

Which means adding on bits and pieces from elsewhere is allowed as well.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: That said if we seek God as our lined in scripture He will not only support us He will reward the faithful.

And what is supposedly "lined in scripture" is open to interpretation as well.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Because their is a common element you are missing in the three cults you have mentioned. The bible is not the only source in which those cults derive their beliefs and doctrine.

An element they share with the rest of the mainstream Christianity.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Once you stray from the bible add or cut out what you do not like you cease building your 'house' on the rock of Christ. Which means you cease being a 'Christian' by defination.

But, as you said, adding and cutting is allowed for mainstream Christianity - why not for the others?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Mainstream Christians (for the most part) do not do this. That is where the consistancy is you fail to see.

But they do do this. If there are any actual limits to the adding and cutting allowed then present them. So far, the only "limit" you gave is following NT - interpretation being up to the reader - and everything else is between them and their hypothetical god.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: They do if you understand context and what was orginally written.

Nope. You've tried resolving them by playing the context card and it still doesn't work.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: No, they are ALL Wrong to one degree or another.

Including yours, then. So why should we trust your interpretations of the bible and your statements about "what it means"?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: I know you do not see the irony here as I do, but to a degree you are right in that because you can not resolve these 'logical' errors you loose faith.

Never had any to begin with.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: The problem is, you from a point of pride assume that your understanding of God is indeed correct.

No, I understand from a point of rationality that all presented understandings of god are illogical. I've no obligation to sort out your messes for you.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: For instance in your last paragraph you assumed that 'all are right in their view of God.' No questions just an assertion and a blanket statement. The a follow up assertion that supports your current beliefs.

That's not an assertion, that's a conclusion based on your statement that everyone is allowed to understand god in their own way.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: When in fact all Christians no matter what their faith is, are wrong in their view of God in one degree or another.

Including you, apparently. So, why should I trust your statement that your god isn't illogical?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: And, it is the same grace that we receive when we willfully sin, that helps us find forgiveness when we are worshiping and trying to love God with all of our being. (As the greatest command tells us)

That'd be your interpretation - which could be wrong.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: We are finite God is infinate, so therefore none of us can have a complete understanding of God.

..and we are not expected to either.

So, you don't have the right answers, you are not expected to have the right answers, you admit to not having the right answers and yet you expect us to believe in your answers? I'll pass.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: It does not include those covered by the attonement offered by Christ no.

That doesn't answer my question - are the non-worshippers included among the wicked or not?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: (But as mat 7 tells us not all who say they are Christians/followers are indeed followers.)

Including you.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Again they are not because they have other 'holy books/writtings' the superceed the bible/Christ's teachings.

Which is apparently allowed for other mainstream Christians.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Ah, no.
Eu's First horn/paradox says that if morality is a standard greater than the 'gods' (plural because it was written to test the validity of the claim of the all powerful greek gods) then the gods were not omnipotent. Because again the standard is greater than the gods themselves making the one who put the 'pious standard' in place greater than the gods who have to obey them.

Sorry, my mistake - and thus your theology gets skewered in the ass by Euthyphro's second horn.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: This statement presupposes that any standard is constant. If you believe this name one. Name an instant where it is NEVER ok to 'X'.

I don't. You do. You are the one who argues that your god's standard is constant.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: The very nature of Morality is constantly moving as in man's world it is the lessor of two evil. On the other hand God's standard is Righteousness (not morality) and as such it is whatever He wants it too be, which is the true earmark of an All powerful God.

So my point stands - your god's standard is not constant.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Indeed, subjective to the one who spoke creation into existance.
(Before you respond take into consideration the irony of my last statament.)

Again - the point stands. Your god's morality is subjective.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Not at all. God's commands to Kill are like that of any nation. His command against Killing actually reads, "You shall not Murder." Note it says nothing about killing or the simple act of taking a life. The difference? If God commands the death of another, then the taking of human life is not what hold any righteous/moral value. It is the unsanctioned taking of human life that has been forbidden. rather the taking of life for your own reasons is what has been forbidden. That never changes.

You might want to recall the the context of this question.

vorlon13: "Or maybe go back to a classic, burn the house to the ground, slay the male off spring, steal the livestock, rape the women, and poison the well ???"

To which, your reply was - in effect - "Man's morality can be twisted to justify this sort of destructive behavior - it has nothing to do with god".

And yet, here you argue that this very behavior is justified if your god says so. That if your god commands it, all the raping, killing, pillaging, burning and stealing are moral things to do.


So, in conclusion, we've established that your god's morality is authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify all kinds of sick and twisted behavior. As far as you know, Hitler might have been acting on your god's command - he certainly claimed to.

(September 19, 2014 at 1:22 pm)genkaus Wrote: So, following the whole bible is not a requirement to be a Christian.

The bible repersents two sepret and distinct religions. OT Judaism and NT Christianity. If one wants to be an OT Jew he is bound by the laws of the OT. However if one seeks to be a Christian that person is free to live as bound as an OT Jew or as Paul states 'free from the law, as a means to righteousness.'

The righteousness required for eternal life can only come through attonement. To receive attonement, one must seek it as Christ instructs in the NT.

Quote:Which means following the whole bible is not a requirement for them to be a Christian.

The bible repersents two sepret and distinct religions. OT Judaism and NT Christianity. If one wants to be an OT Jew he is bound by the laws of the OT. However if one seeks to be a Christian that person is free to live as bound as an OT Jew or as Paul states 'free from the law, as a means to righteousness.'

The righteousness required for eternal life can only come through attonement. To receive attonement, one must seek it as Christ instructs in the NT.

Quote:Which means adding on bits and pieces from elsewhere is allowed as well.

what are bits and peices?

Quote:And what is supposedly "lined in scripture" is open to interpretation as well.

actually no. Because God will not support our own efforts. Your failed faith (Because God never gave you 'proof' because you did not seek Him as instructed) is testament to that.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Because their is a common element you are missing in the three cults you have mentioned. The bible is not the only source in which those cults derive their beliefs and doctrine.

[You=quote]
An element they share with the rest of the mainstream Christianity.
[/quote]
Actually, the book of mormon is unique to mormons. The watch tower chronicles are unique to the JW, and David koresh is unique to the branch davidians.

No other form of christianity share belief or a common source to these indivisual religion's doctrine. Again just incase you really as slow as you are pretending to be here; The mormon's beliefs center around the book of mormon first. meaning if the book of mormon says 'a' and the bible says 'b' then the book of mormon's authority over the bible is recognized first. like wise with the other two.

Because their beliefs center around a source outside of the bible, they can not be considered Christians simply because the bible is the only book that contains the teachings of Christ which again by defination are parramount to be considered a 'CHRISTian"

Quote:But, as you said, adding and cutting is allowed for mainstream Christianity - why not for the others?

Where did i say this?

I think you built a straw man here. I said Christians are only responsiable to what we are given over to understand in the bible.

Again, the mormons JW's and Davidians do not follow the teaching of the bible. They have their own holy books/teachers.

Quote:But they do do this. If there are any actual limits to the adding and cutting allowed then present them. So far, the only "limit" you gave is following NT - interpretation being up to the reader - and everything else is between them and their hypothetical god.

Again what you want to talk past is the fact that in mormonism it does not stop at ignoring the parts of the bible one can not reconsile. The bible has been completely replaced with a completely different doctrine.

The book of mormon is touted as the "third testament."

Quote:Nope. You've tried resolving them by playing the context card and it still doesn't work.

show me where you think it does not work.

Quote:Including yours, then. So why should we trust your interpretations of the bible and your statements about "what it means"?

Including mine, that is why I said ALL ARE WRONG!
Therefore one needs the same attonement offed by Christ, to attone not only for our sins but our misspent worship as well.

Quote:No, I understand from a point of rationality that all presented understandings of god are illogical. I've no obligation to sort out your messes for you.

what makes you think I need anything sorted out? I am not the one making claims of the nature of God, Christianity, or the bible that have been proven beyond incorrect. I am not the one using a 4th graders sunday school understanding of God and tring to superimpose it on to a failed arguement.

Your version/understanding of God is completly irrational. i completely agree. However if/when you get ready to speak of the God of the bible you are going to have a more difficult time HONESTLY making that same claim. The only way you can even try to make that claim is if you burry your head in the sand even deeper than it is now, and pretend we are indeed talking about the same God.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: For instance in your last paragraph you assumed that 'all are right in their view of God.' No questions just an assertion and a blanket statement. The a follow up assertion that supports your current beliefs.

You Wrote:That's not an assertion, that's a conclusion based on your statement that everyone is allowed to understand god in their own way.

Then your reading comperhension is beyond lacking. Show me where I made the claims you are answering.

Quote:Including you, apparently. So, why should I trust your statement that your god isn't illogical?

The primise of basic Logic is not determined in a claim for or against. Logic is determined by reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. To validate is to independantly test and confirm. I provide principles about God that can be tested and confirmed.
See my A/S/K thread for recent examples.

Quote:That'd be your interpretation - which could be wrong.

Actually no. I have not interpereted anything.
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprit/verb: interpret; 3rd person present: interprets; past tense: interpreted; past participle: interpreted; gerund or present participle: interpreting
1. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
I do not have to explain anything, it is clearly written
I made verfiable statements:

1)To worship God incorrectly is a sin. (Ask for verses and I can provide them.)

2)All sins are forgiven in Christianity, less blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.

Again, no interpretation needed as forgiveness of sin is a foundational principle of Christianity.

Quote:So, you don't have the right answers, you are not expected to have the right answers,

not all of them no. Just the ones we have been intrusted with.

Quote:you admit to not having the right answers

You are an intelectually dishonest person. This conclusion presupposes or twists what i said into the assertion that all my answers are wrong.

This is not the case. No one Can have all the right answers except God Himself. As I am not God I can not have all the right answers.

Quote:and yet you expect us to believe in your answers?I'll pass.

All i expect is you make an honest effort to determine the truth for yourself. My role here is to simply point you in the right direction.

However if you are one of the deer in the headlight type of people then maybe it is better that you do 'pass' and let the truck hit you. that way you will allow the next deer the oppertunity to be lead off the road to simply stand there and watch the lights get brighter, as you do.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: It does not include those covered by the attonement offered by Christ no.

Quote:That doesn't answer my question - are the non-worshippers included among the wicked or not?

the status of 'worship' is not a consideration concerning the wicked. However if you are incorrectl trying to use the word worshiper as a synomn for believer the answer is yes. As non believers are considered wicked.

Quote:Including you.

maybe you should take the plank from your eye, before you try and dig out specks in mine.

Quote:Which is apparently allowed for other mainstream Christians.

such as?

Quote:Sorry, my mistake - and thus your theology gets skewered in the ass by Euthyphro's second horn.

how so?

Quote:I don't. You do. You are the one who argues that your god's standard is constant.

Yes, and that standard has nothing to do with specific action, rather our obediance to God whatever action we are to take.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: The very nature of Morality is constantly moving as in man's world it is the lessor of two evil. On the other hand God's standard is Righteousness (not morality) and as such it is whatever He wants it too be, which is the true earmark of an All powerful God.

you Wrote:So my point stands - your god's standard is not constant.

Actually your point fails hard. As it is a simply mind's belief that 'standards' can only deal with specific actions and not general obediance. (from which we have even been freed.)

Quote:Again - the point stands. Your god's morality is subjective.

Unsupported claim. Please demonstrate.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Not at all. God's commands to Kill are like that of any nation. His command against Killing actually reads, "You shall not Murder." Note it says nothing about killing or the simple act of taking a life. The difference? If God commands the death of another, then the taking of human life is not what hold any righteous/moral value. It is the unsanctioned taking of human life that has been forbidden. rather the taking of life for your own reasons is what has been forbidden. That never changes.

Quote:You might want to recall the the context of this question.

vorlon13: "Or maybe go back to a classic, burn the house to the ground, slay the male off spring, steal the livestock, rape the women, and poison the well ???"

To which, your reply was - in effect - "Man's morality can be twisted to justify this sort of destructive behavior - it has nothing to do with god".

And yet, here you argue that this very behavior is justified if your god says so. That if your god commands it, all the raping, killing, pillaging, burning and stealing are moral things to do.


So, in conclusion, we've established that your god's morality is authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify all kinds of sick and twisted behavior. As far as you know, Hitler might have been acting on your god's command - he certainly claimed to.

I do not see your point. because all the things you've listed here and misattributed to the passage in 1 sam to the nature of God, has infact been the battle cry for the rise of every empire from that time to this (including the english empire and the rise of the United States) with or without God as the head of a nation. Which means this is an attribute in grained in the hearts of Man and not God.

If this was an attribute of a conquoring God then these acts would indeed be apart of every conquest God has made. Which again is neother here nor their because the acts themselves are not what is being evaluated, rather the Isrealites obediance to God, in that specific instance.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: The bible repersents two sepret and distinct religions. OT Judaism and NT Christianity. If one wants to be an OT Jew he is bound by the laws of the OT. However if one seeks to be a Christian that person is free to live as bound as an OT Jew or as Paul states 'free from the law, as a means to righteousness.'

The righteousness required for eternal life can only come through attonement. To receive attonement, one must seek it as Christ instructs in the NT.

This does not counter my statement - "So, following the whole bible is not a requirement to be a Christian".

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: what are bits and peices?

Are you really asking for definitions of these simple words?

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: actually no. Because God will not support our own efforts. Your failed faith (Because God never gave you 'proof' because you did not seek Him as instructed) is testament to that.

Either "seeking him is your own way" is allowed all the way or it isn't or it is allowed within specific limits. If its allowed all the way - you have no basis for saying who is or isn't a Christian. If its not allowed - then Frod isn't a Christian according to you. If its allowed within limits - then you've failed to provide a clear picture of what those limits are or to apply them consistently.

FYI, something that never existed in the first place cannot fail.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually, the book of mormon is unique to mormons. The watch tower chronicles are unique to the JW, and David koresh is unique to the branch davidians.

No other form of christianity share belief or a common source to these indivisual religion's doctrine.

What they do share, however, is borrowing from sources other than the bible.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Again just incase you really as slow as you are pretending to be here; The mormon's beliefs center around the book of mormon first. meaning if the book of mormon says 'a' and the bible says 'b' then the book of mormon's authority over the bible is recognized first. like wise with the other two.

Because their beliefs center around a source outside of the bible, they can not be considered Christians simply because the bible is the only book that contains the teachings of Christ which again by defination are parramount to be considered a 'CHRISTian"

Again, that's something they have in common with the rest of Christianity.
a. According to you, the bible says that god is not omni-benevolent.
b. Mainstream theologians say that your god is omni-benevolent.
Most Christians choose 'b' over 'a'.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Where did i say this?

I think you built a straw man here. I said Christians are only responsiable to what we are given over to understand in the bible.

And that is your way of describing adding and cutting from the bible.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Again, the mormons JW's and Davidians do not follow the teaching of the bible. They have their own holy books/teachers.

They say they do.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Again what you want to talk past is the fact that in mormonism it does not stop at ignoring the parts of the bible one can not reconsile. The bible has been completely replaced with a completely different doctrine.

The book of mormon is touted as the "third testament."

No, I'm not looking past anything. Mainstream Christianity likewise ignores parts of the bible and adds stuff from different doctrines. As far as "completely replacing" goes, the Mormons say that they haven't done so.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: show me where you think it does not work.

Just open any of your threads. Hell, just look at this thread.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Including mine, that is why I said ALL ARE WRONG!
Therefore one needs the same attonement offed by Christ, to attone not only for our sins but our misspent worship as well.

But that is your interpretation. You could be completely wrong and the right answer might be that accepting atonement is not required. Why should I believe you when you say that?

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: what makes you think I need anything sorted out? I am not the one making claims of the nature of God, Christianity, or the bible that have been proven beyond incorrect.

You are - by your own admission. You are making claims about your god and Christianity and by your own admission, you are wrong.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Your version/understanding of God is completly irrational. i completely agree.

Its not my version, its the Christian version.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: However if/when you get ready to speak of the God of the bible you are going to have a more difficult time HONESTLY making that same claim. The only way you can even try to make that claim is if you burry your head in the sand even deeper than it is now, and pretend we are indeed talking about the same God.

No burying required.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Then your reading comperhension is beyond lacking. Show me where I made the claims you are answering.

Here:

Drich Wrote:I am not trying to break your understanding of the nature of God. Your entitled to build any picture you need to.

and here:

Drich Wrote:I have pointed out frodo is well with in his rights to be at whatever level of understanding he is at, as a Christian.

There maybe any more instances - but I'm not going to bother finding them. Two are sufficient to prove my point.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: The primise of basic Logic is not determined in a claim for or against. Logic is determined by reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. To validate is to independantly test and confirm. I provide principles about God that can be tested and confirmed.
See my A/S/K thread for recent examples.

Read it, didn't find anything matching the strict principles of validity.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Actually no. I have not interpereted anything.
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprit/verb: interpret; 3rd person present: interprets; past tense: interpreted; past participle: interpreted; gerund or present participle: interpreting
1. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
I do not have to explain anything, it is clearly written
I made verfiable statements:

1)To worship God incorrectly is a sin. (Ask for verses and I can provide them.)

2)All sins are forgiven in Christianity, less blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.

Again, no interpretation needed as forgiveness of sin is a foundational principle of Christianity.

Unless you can find a verse that literally says "To worship God incorrectly is a sin" - then you are providing an interpretation.

If you say all sins are forgiven and I give you terms and conditions about which sins are not forgiven (apart from blaspheme of the Holy Spirit) and your try to "explain" those verses - then you are providing an interpretation.

Are these conditions acceptable to you?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: not all of them no. Just the ones we have been intrusted with.

But we can't even expect you know which those are.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: You are an intelectually dishonest person. This conclusion presupposes or twists what i said into the assertion that all my answers are wrong.

It concludes by your admission that none of your answers are trustworthy - therefore it is incorrect to assume any to be right.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: This is not the case. No one Can have all the right answers except God Himself. As I am not God I can not have all the right answers.

And if you don't know which of your answers are right and have no way of knowing it - why would I trust any of them?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: All i expect is you make an honest effort to determine the truth for yourself.

Been there. Done that. Found your theology to be a pack of lies.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: My role here is to simply point you in the right direction.

Except, there is no reason to believe that the direction you point to is right.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: However if you are one of the deer in the headlight type of people then maybe it is better that you do 'pass' and let the truck hit you. that way you will allow the next deer the oppertunity to be lead off the road to simply stand there and watch the lights get brighter, as you do.

Oh goody - more of Pascal's wager.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: the status of 'worship' is not a consideration concerning the wicked. However if you are incorrectl trying to use the word worshiper as a synomn for believer the answer is yes. As non believers are considered wicked.

So, the requirement is believing in any god or believing in your god or believing in your specific interpretation of your god?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: maybe you should take the plank from your eye, before you try and dig out specks in mine.

What plank?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: such as?

Such as accepting the teachings of other theologians which, according to you, contradicts the bible.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: how so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_d...Problems_2

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I don't. You do. You are the one who argues that your god's standard is constant.

Yes, and that standard has nothing to do with specific action, rather our obediance to God whatever action we are to take.

So, you admit to arguing that your god's standard is constant. And yet, you previously argued: "This statement presupposes that any standard is constant. If you believe this name one." - implying that you don't accept any standard as constant.

At some point, you have to stop shooting yourself in foot.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Actually your point fails hard. As it is a simply mind's belief that 'standards' can only deal with specific actions and not general obediance. (from which we have even been freed.)

General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality - because he is being guided by the principle of obeying. The constancy of your god's morality is determined by what he commands and if his commands keep changing over time - which they do.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Again - the point stands. Your god's morality is subjective.

Unsupported claim. Please demonstrate.

Already demonstrated by your own admission of subjectivity. Back-tracking won't help you now.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: I do not see your point. because all the things you've listed here and misattributed to the passage in 1 sam to the nature of God, has infact been the battle cry for the rise of every empire from that time to this (including the english empire and the rise of the United States) with or without God as the head of a nation. Which means this is an attribute in grained in the hearts of Man and not God.

But you admitted that your god did command this actions. Of the four options given to you, there was a specific one indicating that this command has been misattributed and that your god never commanded such a thing and the bible is lying about it - you did not pick that. Which means there was no misattribution.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: If this was an attribute of a conquoring God then these acts would indeed be apart of every conquest God has made.

Not if your god's commands change from time to time - as you admit they do.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Which again is neother here nor their because the acts themselves are not what is being evaluated, rather the Isrealites obediance to God, in that specific instance.

No, the commands are being evaluated. We are evaluating your god's morality and showing it to be authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify all kinds of sick and twisted behavior and the way to do that is to evaluate his commands.

(September 20, 2014 at 12:17 am)genkaus Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='754933' dateline='1411154922']
The bible repersents two sepret and distinct religions. OT Judaism and NT Christianity. If one wants to be an OT Jew he is bound by the laws of the OT. However if one seeks to be a Christian that person is free to live as bound as an OT Jew or as Paul states 'free from the law, as a means to righteousness.'

The righteousness required for eternal life can only come through attonement. To receive attonement, one must seek it as Christ instructs in the NT.

Quote:This does not counter my statement - "So, following the whole bible is not a requirement to be a Christian".

Then look at it from the other side. Maybe it is not supposed to out right counter your statement, but rather it defines the limitations of what you said.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: what are bits and peices?

you Wrote:Are you really asking for definitions of these simple words?

I am asking for the examples you have labled bits and peices.

Quote:Either "seeking him is your own way" is allowed all the way or it isn't or it is allowed within specific limits.

Again we are allowed to seek God any way we wish. However that does not obligate God to honor our efforts.

You assume just because we are allowed or can do something that it will be equally as benficial as doing it God's way.
This is an unsupported assertion.

You are still thinking of Christianity as absolutist form of religion.

It seems you just cant quite comperhend basic grace, and the fundementals of attonement.

In an ecconomy (meaning In biblically based Christianity) of Grace one has freedom to worship God to the best of his own ablity.

Quote:FYI, something that never existed in the first place cannot fail.

You speak of Christianity as if you were aprt of it at one time. Change the way you repersent it and i will no longer address you are one who formaly had a faith.

Quote:What they do share, however, is borrowing from sources other than the bible.

You make far too many blind assertions. The three cults being discussed do not borrow anything. They supperceed bible with the words and instructions of their particular prophets (Written or verblaized.)

Quote:Again, that's something they have in common with the rest of Christianity.
a. According to you, the bible says that god is not omni-benevolent.
b. Mainstream theologians say that your god is omni-benevolent.
Most Christians choose 'b' over 'a'.

Mainstream Christianity doesn't say God is omni benevolent. Catholic based religions do.
Even so this does not change the Doctrine of Christ in any way. Because God does indeed Love all his Children infinatly. It's just not all who dewell along side His children automatically belong to God.

The parable of the wheat and weeds/Wheat and tares, is a testament to that.
(A Tare is a weed that looks like wheat, but yeilds a black ineddiable seed.) Meaning there are those who look like and act like those who belong to God, but they do not.

Quote:And that is your way of describing adding and cutting from the bible.

show me where. Again you have made a blind assertion based on your personal perception contrived from either poor reading comperhension ,or far more likly a dishonest intelect that has one twist words to support his arguements.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Again, the mormons JW's and Davidians do not follow the teaching of the bible. They have their own holy books/teachers.

Quote:They say they do.

Again an unsupported assertion. Show me where 'they' do. Show me a link to an offical web site or something other than your 'word.'

Quote:No, I'm not looking past anything. Mainstream Christianity likewise ignores parts of the bible and adds stuff from different doctrines.

this is another unsupported assertion.

Quote:As far as "completely replacing" goes, the Mormons say that they haven't done so.

Not familiar with the Mormon D&C?

This is another suplmentary book to the bible. It is a bible size book containing nothing but the Doctrines of mormonism and the covenants their god promised them for following these doctrine. Everything in that book superceeds the bible (just like everything in the book of mormon, as well as what is written in the 'pearl of great price.'

So if nothing in the 3 main mormon books contratict the bible, then the bible teachings stands. if however the teachings of any of these three specific mormon books contradicts the bible then the bible teaching has been deem to be 'corrupt over time, mis translated, or replace by the third testament of christ.'

So point of fact they do not teach doctrine out of the bible. They teach mormon doctrine out of their various books of doctrine. Even if one of their books mirrors a teaching of Christ as written in the bible, it is not from the authority of the bible that validates this teaching to the mormon. It is the fact that it was sourced, allowed, or confirmed in their book.

A similar point can be made between OT judaism and Muslim beliefs. A simple example being is the Jews believe that to take the name of the Lord in vain is a very serious offense. as do the muslims. However this belief is not share because both holy books agree on this point, it is believed because their particular holy book says so. It really does not matter what the other book says. Mormonism is to Christianity as radical Islam is to Judaism. (Their cut throat behaivor happens in the next life, as apposed to the muslims in this life.)

Quote:Just open any of your threads. Hell, just look at this thread.

then it should be very easy to site an example.

Quote:But that is your interpretation.

Again you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word interpertation. To interperet means to explain/to put into your own words. to reinterpret. I have not explained anything in this instance. I have posted what the bible actually says. So again that is not an interpretation that is called quoting.

Quote: You could be completely wrong and the right answer might be that accepting atonement is not required. Why should I believe you when you say that?

Because what I said has nothing to do with interpertation. This again is an example of intelectual dishonesty. You have changed the meaning of a given word 'interpertation' to maintain a failed arguement.
Romans 3
21 But God has a way to make people right, and it has nothing to do with the law. He has now shown us that new way, which the law and the prophets told us about. 22 God makes people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. He does this for all who believe in Christ. Everyone is the same. 23 All have sinned and are not good enough to share God’s divine greatness. 24 They are made right with God by his grace. This (atonement) is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. 25-26 God gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins through their faith in him. God can forgive them because the blood sacrifice of Jesus pays for their sins. God gave Jesus to show that he always does what is right and fair. He was right in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And in our own time he still does what is right. God worked all this out in a way that allows him to judge people fairly and still make right any person who has faith in Jesus.

27 So do we have any reason to boast about ourselves? No reason at all. And why not? Because we are depending on the way of faith, not on what we have done in following the law. 28 I mean we are made right with God through faith, not through what we have done to follow the law. This is what we believe. 29 God is not only the God of the Jews. He is also the God of those who are not Jews. 30 There is only one God. He will make Jews right with him by their faith, and he will also make non-Jews right with him through their faith. 31 So do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? Not at all! In fact, faith causes us to be what the law actually wants.

This is what the bible says about attonement. no interpertation here just a straight up quote.

(September 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: what makes you think I need anything sorted out? I am not the one making claims of the nature of God, Christianity, or the bible that have been proven beyond incorrect.

you Wrote:You are - by your own admission. You are making claims about your god and Christianity and by your own admission, you are wrong.

wrong about what? To say one is not infallable does not make them wrong about everything. It simply states the obvious. that one can not be right about everything.

So if you believe that I am wrong about something then stop making basless accusations, nut up and commit to a statement by supporting it with examples of something.

In all these long drawn out posts you have FAILED to sucessfully do this once.
You should change your screen name to 'the accuser.'

Quote:Its not my version, its the Christian version.

So, let me see I can follow your messed up logic..

The atheist is repersenting the whole of christianity in his arguement while the Christian's statement that is in conflict does not?

Ummm, no.

As a bible based Christian I can assure you little of what you believe about Christianity is bible based. Therefore the god you think is the God of the bible is indeed a construct of your own private understanding. This version of god MAYBE a bastardized version of the god of some fail version pop christianity. Something you picked up while attending sunday school, but is a long way from the God of the bible.

Which again is why your faith/faith of those like you fail, and you all become angry atheist. (because your god is not based on anything of this world nor of the next.) And, simple logic tears this construct apart.

The God of the bible however is not so easily pushed over.
Maybe when you get done chasing your tail here you can start a thread that put up some of the big faith ending paradoxes that put you out of business.

you Wrote:That's not an assertion, that's a conclusion based on your statement that everyone is allowed to understand god in their own way.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Then your reading comperhension is beyond lacking. Show me where I made the claims you are answering.

Here:

Drich Wrote:I am not trying to break your understanding of the nature of God. Your entitled to build any picture you need to.

and here:

Drich Wrote:I have pointed out frodo is well with in his rights to be at whatever level of understanding he is at, as a Christian.

Again your assertion is everyone has the freedom to build a picture of God and God must honor it.

One more time for the record. God is not bound to honor our 'pictures' that we build.

Christ illustrates this point in the parable of the wise and foolish builders.

The wise man built this house on the rock, while the foolish man built his house on the sand. What we are building is our picture of God our religious efforts our religious beliefs. Again because there are wise and foolish builders allow to build what and where they want means we are entitled to build whatever picture we want.

Now the part that prooves God is not obligated to honor what we build comes in the second half of the parable. In that the rains come. The rain comes down,, and the flood water goes up. The house on the rock (The house built on Jesus Christ as outlined in scripture) stands firm while the foolish man's house fall in on itself.

So again I said we are allow to build anything. Point in fact per the parable of Christ we are. However You took from that God will inturn support what we have built. Again not true. Also know I did not say this because the parable does not say this. You filled in the blanks and ran with it. when caught and corrected you pressed on. To continue to press on you point now in the light of a complete explaination will be beyond dishonest.

Quote:There maybe any more instances - but I'm not going to bother finding them. Two are sufficient to prove my point.

Your point failed, because you took 1/2 a concept and rather make any attempt to fully understand it you disected what you thought could be made valid in a counter arguement and got caught. It's time to let all of this go.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: The primise of basic Logic is not determined in a claim for or against. Logic is determined by reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. To validate is to independantly test and confirm. I provide principles about God that can be tested and confirmed.
See my A/S/K thread for recent examples.

Quote:Read it, didn't find anything matching the strict principles of validity.

Sorrry sport, I already beat you to it. That is why I defined validity for you as well. Wonk waa.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Actually no. I have not interpereted anything.
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprit/verb: interpret; 3rd person present: interprets; past tense: interpreted; past participle: interpreted; gerund or present participle: interpreting
1. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
I do not have to explain anything, it is clearly written
I made verfiable statements:

1)To worship God incorrectly is a sin. (Ask for verses and I can provide them.)

2)All sins are forgiven in Christianity, less blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.

Again, no interpretation needed as forgiveness of sin is a foundational principle of Christianity.

Quote:Unless you can find a verse that literally says "To worship God incorrectly is a sin" - then you are providing an interpretation.

I can show you examples where God cause the ground to open up and swallow people because they were not worshiping Him correctly. I can show you verses where God has struck people down where they have not worshiped him correctly. i can show you verses where people are to be stonned if they fail to worship God in a certain way, I can show you where Israel was taken captive multiple times for not worshiping God correctly.... Where do you want to start? Let start with Judges 1 and 2 (The whole books) Because they are dedicated to the sin, punishment, repent, restoration cycle. This cycle repeats itself over and over and over. there are many examples of out right sin, failure to worship , failure to heed God examples all through the books.

Quote:If you say all sins are forgiven and I give you terms and conditions about which sins are not forgiven (apart from blaspheme of the Holy Spirit) and your try to "explain" those verses - then you are providing an interpretation.

Are these conditions acceptable to you?

No, not if you can provide Book Chapter and verse that clearly outlines those stipulations. Again interpertation is putting something in your own words. NOT Using The Words That Have Been Written.

Quote:But we can't even expect you know which those are.

Why not?
We have been intrusted with the bible. I and people like me repersent the God of the Bible. Therefore if we teach only from the bible then we can be trusted to share with you all that Man has been intrusted with.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: This is not the case. No one Can have all the right answers except God Himself. As I am not God I can not have all the right answers.

you Wrote:And if you don't know which of your answers are right and have no way of knowing it - why would I trust any of them?

What makes you think we have no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong?

Again if we are worshiping the God of the bible then the bible is all we need.

Quote:Been there. Done that. Found your theology to be a pack of lies.

Not according to your previous statement. You said you never had faith which makes you a liar. You are either lying now or you lied when you said you never had faith.
So which is it? you were a man of faith or is it you never had it?

Quote:Except, there is no reason to believe that the direction you point to is right.

again if we are speaking in terms of the right direction concerning the God of the bible you have the bible to show you that I am indeed pointing you in the right direction.

Quote:So, the requirement is believing in any god or believing in your god or believing in your specific interpretation of your god?

As the terms for forgiveness of sins, through the act of Jesus Christ as per the gospel accounts found in the bible are what is being discussed. it is to the God of the bible through Christ that belief must be made. This is the foundation Jesus mentioned in the parable of the wise and foolish builders.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: maybe you should take the plank from your eye, before you try and dig out specks in mine.

Quote:What plank?

"Eye" guess the plank has blinded you.

"Eye've" known you were an exbeliever one or two posts in. (way too much anger to be a passer by.) Your 'plank' refers to the statement you just admitted to a few paragraphs ago. "Been there tried that/christianity."

if you will remember my orginal statement that spawned this little back and fourth was: (But as mat 7 tells us not all who say they are Christians/followers are indeed followers.)
then you said "including you."
which lead us to my plank comment.

meaning: Everything you believe christianity to have been, may have been some empty religion that God has not supported for a very long time if ever.

Therefore you plank is that you never were a bible based christian and never knew or experienced the God of the bible, which cause your faith to fail.

In the parable Jesus taught 'to remove the plank in your eye before you concern yourself with the speck in your brother's eye' In your instance it means you should be willing to forensically dissect your failed faith examine it and then dilligently examine mine before you conclude that my beliefs are indeed based off of what failed you.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: such as?

you Wrote:Such as accepting the teachings of other theologians which, according to you, contradicts the bible.

Examples? what denomination? what teaching? where did it orginate? how does it compare to what is written in the bible?

Or is this just another unsupported assertion based on your 'expert' opinion of christianty?

Quote:So, you admit to arguing that your god's standard is constant. And yet, you previously argued: "This statement presupposes that any standard is constant. If you believe this name one." - implying that you don't accept any standard as constant.

God's standard is a standard based on righteousness. Righteousness does not change. However True righteousness is not obtainable for any of us through our own efforts. Therefore our method of obtaining righteousness did Change.

So yes as far as any man made or obtainable form of standard, one can not exist. God does have a unchanging standard we can not obtain on our own, but has made it possable to obtain the level of perfection needed through attonement.

Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:At some point, you have to stop shooting yourself in foot.

Rope a dope baby, rope adope.

Quote:General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality .

No. Even obedience is not a constant in man's morality. How many Nazi officers were hung after WWII for 'Just following orders?" How many of our own soldiers were dishonorably discharged or even placed in prison for 'Just following orders.'/water boarding??

Again there is absolutly nothing constant about man's morality, other than it is always based on what is perceived to be the lessor of two evils. The perception of evil is a ever changing variable which makes morality a joke of a standard.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Unsupported claim. Please demonstrate.

you Wrote:Already demonstrated by your own admission of subjectivity. Back-tracking won't help you now.

then cut and paste. You have already demonstrated a willingness for dishonesty in this conversation if and when it suits you. I can not take your statement at face value.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: I do not see your point. because all the things you've listed here and misattributed to the passage in 1 sam to the nature of God, has infact been the battle cry for the rise of every empire from that time to this (including the english empire and the rise of the United States) with or without God as the head of a nation. Which means this is an attribute in grained in the hearts of Man and not God.

Quote:But you admitted that your god did command this actions. Of the four options given to you, there was a specific one indicating that this command has been misattributed and that your god never commanded such a thing and the bible is lying about it - you did not pick that. Which means there was no misattribution.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: If this was an attribute of a conquoring God then these acts would indeed be apart of every conquest God has made.

Not if your god's commands change from time to time - as you admit they do.

I fail to see a point, therefore I fail to see a reason to invest the time needed to sort out your daisy chain of failed logic here. If you have a point make it. If it is to say your right then I conceed.

Also I did not see any follow up on Euthie's 2 horn.. Am i to understand you have accepted what I have said there?

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Which again is neother here nor their because the acts themselves are not what is being evaluated, rather the Isrealites obediance to God, in that specific instance.


No, the commands are being evaluated. We are evaluating your god's morality and showing it to be authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify all kinds of sick and twisted behavior and the way to do that is to evaluate his commands.

I can not believe you still do not see the connection between man's ever changing morality and you ablity to lable God anything based off this generation's standard.

Allow me to explain to you as if you were a 4th grade sunday schooler.

If your morality is ALWAYS the lessor of two evils then it is only a matter of time before your personal standards are floating in the toliet. So then the question is how can someone with floater/turd like standards judge anything that is not another floater turd as being sub standard?

Christ illustrated this alittle differently. He called people like you 'Self righteous.'
Meaning a person who derives righteousness from one's self. You can not deny that is exactly what it is you are doing. Do you want to go through all of the paradoxes that the NT identifies in the halfbaked world of the self righteous?

Please improve your spelling. Turning on spell-check shouldn't be that hard.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Then look at it from the other side. Maybe it is not supposed to out right counter your statement, but rather it defines the limitations of what you said.

It doesn't do that either. There are no limitations applicable to the concept of non-requirement.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I am asking for the examples you have labled bits and peices.

You mean like omni-benevolence and papal authority.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again we are allowed to seek God any way we wish. However that does not obligate God to honor our efforts.

You assume just because we are allowed or can do something that it will be equally as benficial as doing it God's way.
This is an unsupported assertion.

You are still thinking of Christianity as absolutist form of religion.

It seems you just cant quite comperhend basic grace, and the fundementals of attonement.

In an ecconomy (meaning In biblically based Christianity) of Grace one has freedom to worship God to the best of his own ablity.

Meaningless equivocation - the only ways of "seeking" that your god would honor should be regarded as the ways that are allowed. "Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks".

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: You speak of Christianity as if you were aprt of it at one time. Change the way you repersent it and i will no longer address you are one who formaly had a faith.

I was never a part of Christianity - so I have no idea which part of my representation would make you think I was. And I can't change what I don't know.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: You make far too many blind assertions. The three cults being discussed do not borrow anything. They supperceed bible with the words and instructions of their particular prophets (Written or verblaized.)

According to your arguments, mainstream Chrsitianity does that as well. So, its not a blind assertion, its based on what you argued.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Mainstream Christianity doesn't say God is omni benevolent. Catholic based religions do.
Even so this does not change the Doctrine of Christ in any way. Because God does indeed Love all his Children infinatly. It's just not all who dewell along side His children automatically belong to God.

Unless you are now arguing that Catholics aren't Christians either, Christians do say that your god is omni-benevolent.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again an unsupported assertion. Show me where 'they' do. Show me a link to an offical web site or something other than your 'word.'

Look it up on wiki - it states pretty clearly there that they follow the bible.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: this is another unsupported assertion.

No, its based on your own arguments about how mainstream christian concepts are not biblical and sometimes contrary to it.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Not familiar with the Mormon D&C?

This is another suplmentary book to the bible. It is a bible size book containing nothing but the Doctrines of mormonism and the covenants their god promised them for following these doctrine. Everything in that book superceeds the bible (just like everything in the book of mormon, as well as what is written in the 'pearl of great price.'

So if nothing in the 3 main mormon books contratict the bible, then the bible teachings stands. if however the teachings of any of these three specific mormon books contradicts the bible then the bible teaching has been deem to be 'corrupt over time, mis translated, or replace by the third testament of christ.'

Still not seeing anything other mainstream Christians don't do on a regular basis. Other than treating those alternate sources as divine as well. Is that the condition? You are allowed to borrow from other sources, treat them as superseding the bible and ignore parts of bible as long as you don't consider them holy?

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: So point of fact they do not teach doctrine out of the bible. They teach mormon doctrine out of their various books of doctrine. Even if one of their books mirrors a teaching of Christ as written in the bible, it is not from the authority of the bible that validates this teaching to the mormon. It is the fact that it was sourced, allowed, or confirmed in their book.

So, point of fact, they do teach doctrine out of bible - but not just the bible. Similar to rest of the Christians.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: A similar point can be made between OT judaism and Muslim beliefs. A simple example being is the Jews believe that to take the name of the Lord in vain is a very serious offense. as do the muslims. However this belief is not share because both holy books agree on this point, it is believed because their particular holy book says so. It really does not matter what the other book says. Mormonism is to Christianity as radical Islam is to Judaism. (Their cut throat behaivor happens in the next life, as apposed to the muslims in this life.)

The point is invalidated by the fact that their books are different. However, the bible is a part of Mormon reading curriculum.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: then it should be very easy to site an example.

I just did. All of your threads are a testament to your failure.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word interpertation. To interperet means to explain/to put into your own words. to reinterpret. I have not explained anything in this instance. I have posted what the bible actually says. So again that is not an interpretation that is called quoting.

Those words do not appear in your bible. Therefore, you were not quoting. You are putting stuff from your bible in your own words - therefore, interpretation.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Because what I said has nothing to do with interpertation. This again is an example of intelectual dishonesty. You have changed the meaning of a given word 'interpertation' to maintain a failed arguement.
Romans 3
21 But God has a way to make people right, and it has nothing to do with the law. He has now shown us that new way, which the law and the prophets told us about. 22 God makes people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. He does this for all who believe in Christ. Everyone is the same. 23 All have sinned and are not good enough to share God’s divine greatness. 24 They are made right with God by his grace. This (atonement) is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. 25-26 God gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins through their faith in him. God can forgive them because the blood sacrifice of Jesus pays for their sins. God gave Jesus to show that he always does what is right and fair. He was right in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And in our own time he still does what is right. God worked all this out in a way that allows him to judge people fairly and still make right any person who has faith in Jesus.

27 So do we have any reason to boast about ourselves? No reason at all. And why not? Because we are depending on the way of faith, not on what we have done in following the law. 28 I mean we are made right with God through faith, not through what we have done to follow the law. This is what we believe. 29 God is not only the God of the Jews. He is also the God of those who are not Jews. 30 There is only one God. He will make Jews right with him by their faith, and he will also make non-Jews right with him through their faith. 31 So do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? Not at all! In fact, faith causes us to be what the law actually wants.

This is what the bible says about attonement. no interpertation here just a straight up quote.

Finally - this is the first time you've quoted without interpreting. As you can see, your previous statement "Therefore one needs the same attonement offed by Christ, to attone not only for our sins but our misspent worship as well." occurs nowhere in there - thus making it an interpretation and not a quotation.

I interpret it differently. You interpret "all" from "all have sinned" to refer to whole of humanity. I interpret it to refer to just the sinners, i.e. those who don't follow the law. Which means, there are two ways to "get right" - either have faith or follow the law.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: wrong about what? To say one is not infallable does not make them wrong about everything. It simply states the obvious. that one can not be right about everything.

So if you believe that I am wrong about something then stop making basless accusations, nut up and commit to a statement by supporting it with examples of something.

In all these long drawn out posts you have FAILED to sucessfully do this once.
You should change your screen name to 'the accuser.'

Oh, I think you are wrong about your whole worldview - starting with your belief in god. But that is neither here nor there.

The pertinent point is this:
1. You are making claims about your god.
2. You are wrong about some things in your claims (your admission).
3. Therefore, some of your claims about god are wrong. (From 1 and 2)

Figuring out which parts are wrong is your mess and it isn't my problem to sort out. However until you do sort them out, don't make claims based on the assumption that all your assertions are right.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: So, let me see I can follow your messed up logic..

The atheist is repersenting the whole of christianity in his arguement while the Christian's statement that is in conflict does not?

Not representing - repeating.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: As a bible based Christian I can assure you little of what you believe about Christianity is bible based. Therefore the god you think is the God of the bible is indeed a construct of your own private understanding. This version of god MAYBE a bastardized version of the god of some fail version pop christianity. Something you picked up while attending sunday school, but is a long way from the God of the bible.

I don't have any "private" understanding of your Christian god. I simply take the version given by mainstream Christianity at its face value. In effect, what you are saying is that the mainstream Christianity is worshiping a bastardized version of your interpretation of biblical god.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Which again is why your faith/faith of those like you fail, and you all become angry atheist. (because your god is not based on anything of this world nor of the next.) And, simple logic tears this construct apart.

Again - never had any faith and not angry. And I'm not sure how well mainstream Christianity would react to your assertion that their god is "not based on anything of this world nor of the next"

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: The God of the bible however is not so easily pushed over.
Maybe when you get done chasing your tail here you can start a thread that put up some of the big faith ending paradoxes that put you out of business.

Clearly, he is even more easily pushed over - since most Christians pushed him aside for the bastardized version.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again your assertion is everyone has the freedom to build a picture of God and God must honor it.......

Meaningless equivocation - the only ways of "seeking" that your god would honor should be regarded as the ways that are allowed. "Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks".

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Your point failed, because you took 1/2 a concept and rather make any attempt to fully understand it you disected what you thought could be made valid in a counter arguement and got caught. It's time to let all of this go.

The point is well-proven. Saying that you are allowed to write 2+2=5 but would be penalized for doing so is the same as saying you are not allowed to write 2+2=5.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Sorrry sport, I already beat you to it. That is why I defined validity for you as well. Wonk waa.

The definition of validations isn't your problem. The absence of anything matching it is. Wonk waa.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I can show you examples where God cause the ground to open up and swallow people because they were not worshiping Him correctly. I can show you verses where God has struck people down where they have not worshiped him correctly. i can show you verses where people are to be stonned if they fail to worship God in a certain way, I can show you where Israel was taken captive multiple times for not worshiping God correctly.... Where do you want to start? Let start with Judges 1 and 2 (The whole books) Because they are dedicated to the sin, punishment, repent, restoration cycle. This cycle repeats itself over and over and over. there are many examples of out right sin, failure to worship , failure to heed God examples all through the books.

Again, unless those passages literally say that "To worship God incorrectly is a sin", you are providing an interpretation.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: No, not if you can provide Book Chapter and verse that clearly outlines those stipulations. Again interpertation is putting something in your own words. NOT Using The Words That Have Been Written.

Sure - but I'm not the one claiming not to provide interpretation, you are. So I am free to provide the verse AND its interpretation.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Why not?
We have been intrusted with the bible. I and people like me repersent the God of the Bible. Therefore if we teach only from the bible then we can be trusted to share with you all that Man has been intrusted with.

And, according to you, part of what you teach is wrong and you don't know which part.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: What makes you think we have no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong?

You do.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Not according to your previous statement. You said you never had faith which makes you a liar. You are either lying now or you lied when you said you never had faith.
So which is it? you were a man of faith or is it you never had it?

Sorry, my mistake - I forgot that you think "honest attempt to determine truth" means "put your faith blinders on and believe in the bible".

I, on the other hand, say that an "honest attempt to determine truth" means "use rationals and critical without any faith".

Having done so, I have been there, done that, found your theology to be a pack of lies and all without being a man of faith.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: again if we are speaking in terms of the right direction concerning the God of the bible you have the bible to show you that I am indeed pointing you in the right direction.

And yet, others using the same bible are trying to point in another direction.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: "Eye've" known you were an exbeliever one or two posts in. (way too much anger to be a passer by.)

Again, not an ex-believer, nor angry. Just disgusted.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Your 'plank' refers to the statement you just admitted to a few paragraphs ago. "Been there tried that/christianity."

That's not a planck, that's a microscope.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: if you will remember my orginal statement that spawned this little back and fourth was: (But as mat 7 tells us not all who say they are Christians/followers are indeed followers.)
then you said "including you."
which lead us to my plank comment.

meaning: Everything you believe christianity to have been, may have been some empty religion that God has not supported for a very long time if ever.

Therefore you plank is that you never were a bible based christian and never knew or experienced the God of the bible, which cause your faith to fail.

In the parable Jesus taught 'to remove the plank in your eye before you concern yourself with the speck in your brother's eye' In your instance it means you should be willing to forensically dissect your failed faith examine it and then dilligently examine mine before you conclude that my beliefs are indeed based off of what failed you.

Just how stupid are you?

I don't hold any specific beliefs regarding Christianity - I accept what they say at face value. You go around saying your god is omni-benevolent, I'm fine with that. You go around saying he isn't. I'm fine with that as well. Mormons say they are Christians because they follow the bible - okay. You say they aren't - fine. I'll just sit by and point out the contradictions.

My belief regarding Christianity is simple:
1. You say you believe in bible.
2. You say you believe in Jesus.
3. You say you are a Christian.

That's good enough for me. I'm just examining it with a microscope and point out all the funny little inconsistencies. I'm dissecting your faith and theirs - not my own because I had none to begin with.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Examples? what denomination? what teaching? where did it orginate? how does it compare to what is written in the bible?

Or is this just another unsupported assertion based on your 'expert' opinion of christianty?

Omnibenevolence. Multiple denominations. Medieval theologians. And according to you, it contradicts the bible.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: God's standard is a standard based on righteousness. Righteousness does not change. However True righteousness is not obtainable for any of us through our own efforts. Therefore our method of obtaining righteousness did Change.

As established in another thread on morality about an year ago - when you say "righteousness", you are simply using a fancy word for god's morality. So, basically, what you are saying here is "god's standard of morality is based on god's morality. And since we cannot meet that standard of morality on our own, he created a loophole".

Which amounts to a change in his morality.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: No. Even obedience is not a constant in man's morality.

Irrelevant and pathetic deflection. My statement was "General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality". Your attempt at misdirection has been noted and ignored.

Getting back to the actual argument:
General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality - because he is being guided by the principle of obeying. The constancy of your god's morality is determined by what he commands and if his commands keep changing over time - which they do.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: then cut and paste. You have already demonstrated a willingness for dishonesty in this conversation if and when it suits you. I can not take your statement at face value.

Ad-hom attacks don't work against demonstrable evidence.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Indeed, subjective to the one who spoke creation into existance.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I fail to see a point, therefore I fail to see a reason to invest the time needed to sort out your daisy chain of failed logic here. If you have a point make it. If it is to say your right then I conceed.

The point being that your god's command of raping, killing and pillaging was not a misattribution and was consistent with his morality at the time. And yes, the point is to prove that I was right and I accept your concession.

(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Also I did not see any follow up on Euthie's 2 horn.. Am i to understand you have accepted what I have said there?

You are not - I provided the wiki link to the problems associated the second horn. The problems your theology gets skewered with.

(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: I can not believe you still do not see the connection between man's ever changing morality and you ablity to lable God anything based off this generation's standard.

Allow me to explain to you as if you were a 4th grade sunday schooler.

If your morality is ALWAYS the lessor of two evils then it is only a matter of time before your personal standards are floating in the toliet. So then the question is how can someone with floater/turd like standards judge anything that is not another floater turd as being sub standard?

Christ illustrated this alittle differently. He called people like you 'Self righteous.'
Meaning a person who derives righteousness from one's self. You can not deny that is exactly what it is you are doing. Do you want to go through all of the paradoxes that the NT identifies in the halfbaked world of the self righteous?

Oh, I've seen these arguments before. The only problem is, your god's morality is worse than shit decomposing at the bottom of a compost heap. And that is compared to the morality available to philosophers of that age. Since then, man's morality has been continuously evolving and getting better - so there is nothing disgusting enough for me to compare your god's morality to with respect to today's morality.

You see, the way you talk about personal standards ending up in toilet - that's where your god's standards already are. And I've no intention of letting mine sink that low.

The trick to avoid that is to make your own moral system as different from your god's as possible. Which requires identifying the salient features of your god's twisted morality - which would be authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify raping, killing and pillaging.

What's going on down here? You two having a Bible study?

*slowly retreats and walks back up the stairs*

(September 21, 2014 at 9:47 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What's going on down here? You two having a Bible study?

*slowly retreats and walks back up the stairs*

Fact of life - any discussion of god with Christians will eventually lead to bible.

(September 21, 2014 at 10:15 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 21, 2014 at 9:47 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What's going on down here? You two having a Bible study?

*slowly retreats and walks back up the stairs*

Fact of life - any discussion of god with Christians will eventually lead to bible.

All I will say is that I admire your diligance...and good luck.

(September 21, 2014 at 10:24 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 21, 2014 at 10:15 am)genkaus Wrote: Fact of life - any discussion of god with Christians will eventually lead to bible.

All I will say is that I admire your diligance...and good luck.

Thank you.

(September 21, 2014 at 10:58 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 21, 2014 at 10:24 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: All I will say is that I admire your diligance...and good luck.

Thank you.

Taking credit for another's sufferings like a true Christian.