Why are some people too ugly for god?

[Brakeman]

By isn't sin just what your god doesn't want?

God has prepared or made plans to process and attone for sin. Sin is Choice so to say God never wanted sin is not true. Sin allows us to Chose whether or not we want to be with God, but it also disqualifies us for deserving to be with God. That is why Jesus Died for our sin.

No, According to google and the rest of the non SPAG world:
sin/sin/
Noun:
An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Sin is a "act" not a choice. You can "choose" to sin, but the question of the choice is morality. Please use the common definitions of words and not those that you make up for yourself.

If you are claiming above that god does want sin, perhaps you should explain that to all the other christians who don't agree with that comment. You should also explain the obvious contradiction in logic that comes when you replace sin with "what god doesn't want." Your statement becomes.
"Sin"what god doesn't want" is Choice so to say God never wanted sin"what god doesn't want" is not true."

Unless he's threatening us. God: "Do what I say to you, or you'll become ugly and physically impaired like those disgusting creeps"

No, God is saying because of your sin you are "ugly and disgusting like those creeps, Now here is a way for you to Heal yourself."

"Heal yourself," ??? ...no.. god is supposed to heal them because they can't heal themselves, physically or spiritually. They just get to beg for it and never get it answered, both physically and spiritually.

[Drich]

From Google:
mo·ral·i·ty/məˈralətē/
Noun:
1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

I am not disputing the common understanding of morality. What I am drawing attention to is how one identifies right and wrong. If it is known as "Sin" then right and wrong are determined by the standard of God which is identified in the bible as righteousness or God's Righteousness.. If one determins right and wrong by a personal or even a soceitial standard then it has been identifed this as 'morality,' God/Christ identifies this standard as Self Righteousness. Or a 'righteous' standard one creates for himself, so he does not have to measure up to God's standard, or he creates this standard to benfit himself or his life style.

Sounds like the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth disagree with you that morality has little to do with sin, provided one classifies "wrong" with "sin."

Actually no. Just read what is on page and do not add the particular brand of commentary you seem to favor, and everything works out just fine.

The moral question is whether it was wrong or not to commit a particular sin.

Again Which goes along with the defination of morality I have used in this thread just fine. Morality is man's version of righteousness. or if you perfer: Man's personal determination whether or not it is right or wrong to commit a sin.

You see b-man if 'we' use God's standard of righteousness, the fact that something has been idenitifed as a sin. Makes it wrong by the deity who judges all right and wrong. The fact that you a man wants to decide for himself if something is right and wrong makes your determination a 'righteousness' found apart from God. It is a personal, or as Christ identifies it a Self-righteousness. Which makes all 'morality' as per your 'google defination' points out, because it is the personal principles that determins right and wrong, rather than The absolute unchanging standard of God.

Without the "morals" of right and wrong, adam and eve would not have known that it was wrong to disobey god.

I see what you are saying, you are just wrong. Eve before she ate of the fruit, deminstrated a sence of 'morality.' In that God told Her if she ate she would die. This is God's absolute standard for Adam and Eve. This was the Only Command they had to worry about. Even so Eve took the information she was given by the serpent and created a personal righteousness, or rather she Morally justified eating the forbidden fruit, and subsequently so did Adam. Do you see now? Her standard (morality)Eat, and live. God's standard= Eat and die.

The fruit did not repersent the first time man could contrive a standard apart from God. It simply was the knoweledge of all sin. (It was the realization of all the different way to be outside of God's expressed will.) Not the desire to do so, nor the desire to create a justification to follow through with what the heart desired. Again the story shows our ablity to create 'morality' apart from God's Standard Before the fruit was eaten.
Which further shows that 'morality and sin" have nothing to do with each other.

Having even that one moral destroys the story because all other morals are branches from that one according to the bible.

If you believe this to be true Even IF your interpertation of this story was correct, then you really do not have a basic understanding of Biblical Christianity. For Christianity is NOT a religion base on Works. Meaning we are not judged on how 'good/right' we live our lives. Biblical Christianity is based on the idea that no matter how 'moral or right' we think ourselves to be we will always fall short. That is why we have been given the gift of God's grace/attonement to cover the gap between where our 'morality' leaves off and the perfect standard of God.

No, He has provided dodges and non-answers for pretty much all of the questions. That is all.

The only way anyone could even consider my answers to be 'dodges" is if they:
1) do not understand Biblical Christianity and believe their uninformed version of Christianity (UVC) to be the ONLY version of Christianity recognised by God. (which is quite stupid if you thought about it even for 30 seconds)
2) This person is trying to trivialize and dismiss what he can not scripturally address with his (UVC) and hopes to avoid a deeper discussion by Ad Hominem attacking his opponet.
3) or it could be a combination of 1 and 2

---

No, According to Google and the rest of the non SPAG world:
sin/sin/
Noun:
An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Sin is a "act" not a choice. You can "choose" to sin, but the question of the choice is morality. Please use the common definitions of words and not those that you make up for yourself.

This is what happens when you don't read your bible. Sin is not just an act not according to Christ anyway. (And since we are talking about CHRIST-anity and not Your "common" UVC I will be using what Christ identifies as sin and not what you need the word sin to mean in order for your attempt at a dismissal to work.)
Mat 5:21-34 Christ clearly states the sin goes well beyond 'acts.' This is what makes 'sin' Anything not in the Expressed Will of God, and not just a physical act as you need it to be for you argument to work.

If you are claiming above that god does want sin, perhaps you should explain that to all the other Christians who don't agree with that comment.

God has made allowances for sin. Otherwise we would not have the Sin sacrifice Christ made on the Cross. We would only have God's standard and a command to keep His Law.

You should also explain the obvious contradiction in logic that comes when you replace sin with "what god doesn't want." Your statement becomes.
"Sin"what god doesn't want" is Choice so to say God never wanted sin"what god doesn't want" is not true."

You an adult right? From a western culture? If yes on both questions then why would you ask me to explain a contradiction you created?

"Heal yourself," ??? ...no.. God is supposed to heal them because they can't heal themselves, physically or spiritually. They just get to beg for it and never get it answered, both physically and spiritually.

You an adult right? From a western culture? If yes on both questions then I am assuming you know how analogies work... If not then understand if I draw an illiterative parallel to help describe a more complex principle then you do not get to change the illustration just to create an argument based on your changes. If you do this, then understand in the adult world is known as a Straw man fallacy. This is where you ignore the stated argument and create your own argument (the straw man) and attack your argument rather than addressing mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

1) do not understand Biblical Christianity and believe their uninformed version of Christianity (UVC) to be the ONLY version of Christianity recognised by God. (which is quite stupid if you thought about it even for 30 seconds)
2) This person is trying to trivialize and dismiss what he can not scripturally address with his (UVC) and hopes to avoid a deeper discussion by Ad Hominem attacking his opponet.
3) or it could be a combination of 1 and 2

Or-, option 4, you dodge because you're incapable of answering questions for which you have no answer.

Or 5, or 6, or 6 million. Hey, you seem to be taking an interest in logical fallacies (you still aren't any good at identifying them...but that will come with time) so what do you think a person might call the comment above?

[Drich]

Or-, option 4, you dodge because you're incapable of answering questions for which you have no answer.



Or 5, or 6, or 6 million. Hey, you seem to be taking an interest in logical fallacies (you still aren't any good at identifying them...but that will come with time) so what do you think a person might call the comment above?

Your quoted material would be considered a:
A red herring is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't worry, it takes practice, you'll get the hang of it someday (but I guess you won't be able to do your missionary bit anymore at that point, meh, rock and a hard place) So, why do you think you failed to identify the fallacy above? Is it

1: Because you're just bad at this.
or
2: Because you don't appreciate irony.
or
3: A combination of 1 and 2.

[Jackalope]

Don't worry, it takes practice, you'll get the hang of it someday (but I guess you won't be able to do your missionary bit anymore at that point, meh, rock and a hard place) So, why do you think you failed to identify the fallacy above? Is it

1: Because you're just bad at this.
or
2: Because you don't appreciate irony.
or
3: A combination of 1 and 2.

I see what you did there, bro.

[Brakeman]

Without the "morals" of right and wrong, adam and eve would not have known that it was wrong to disobey god.

I see what you are saying, you are just wrong. Eve before she ate of the fruit, demonstrated a sense of 'morality.' In that God told Her if she ate she would die.

"Die!" - Now just how would eve have known what death was? How would she have known to fear it? Besides, god LIED! EVE did not die that day.

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If you claim that EVE had a sense of right and wrong before she ate of the fruit, what is the point of the big deal about getting additional knowlege of right and wrong? The only wrong she had to worry about was disobeying god, right? How did that change after the fruit? Is not today your sense of right and wrong dependent on obeying god's will too?

Even so Eve took the information she was given by the serpent and created a personal righteousness, or rather she Morally justified eating the forbidden fruit, and subsequently so did Adam. ..

You are messing up your scripture! Adam and eve's sense of right and wrong was the equivalent of god's. God said so.

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

You have read the story haven't you? Or do you just SPAG your way through it?

"Heal yourself," ??? ...no.. God is supposed to heal them because they can't heal themselves, physically or spiritually. They just get to beg for it and never get it answered, both physically and spiritually.

You an adult right? From a western culture? If yes on both questions then I am assuming you know how analogies work... If not then understand if I draw an illiterative parallel to help describe a more complex principle then you do not get to change the illustration just to create an argument based on your changes. If you do this, then understand in the adult world is known as a Straw man fallacy. This is where you ignore the stated argument and create your own argument (the straw man) and attack your argument rather than addressing mine.

Yes, I am an educated adult in the United States, but I can't make much heads or tails of the above word salad that you have submitted as a reply. Do you care to untangle that into a cohesive thought? I don't use strawman fallacies in my arguments as a rule, so don't worry about that.

[Whateverist]

Why do Christians come on to an atheist website and expect anyone to get all into the nitpicky details of the bible? I don't see Muslims looking to engage over details of the Koran (thank you SO much).

I accept that there are all manner of inconsistencies in the bible. But do I really have to find them and point them out for those who won't want to know anyway? It just isn't all that interesting and could anything I found in there possibly be worth the trouble? Think I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would they have to do such a thing Whatev, it's all true. You know that scribble in some non-descript sura that leaked onto the page when the scribe fell asleep at the wheel? That's 100% true as well.

http://hark.com/clips/wlfgbmwxxc-its-twue

[Whateverist]

Why would they have to do such a thing Whatev, it's all true. You know that scribble in some non-descript sura that leaked onto the page when the scribe fell asleep at the wheel? That's 100% true as well.

http://hark.com/clips/wlfgbmwxxc-its-twue

Probably some kind of sign! We should all worship non-descript scribble! Thanks for the epiphany.