(August 7, 2015 at 11:32 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:Again, "terrible" by what standard?(August 7, 2015 at 10:35 am)orangebox21 Wrote:
By what standard?
Intellectual integrity as you have put it is limited in scope. There are things we can know, things we might know, things we can know in the future, and things we will never know. This premise isn't limited to the realm of religious faith.
It depends upon your definition of good. Jesus said God alone is good. If that is true then neither a believer nor an unbeliever is good. The difference being that believers [having God living within them] can be good, yet it is not them which are good but Christ living within them. If your defining good as 'gives money to charity' then yes some unbelievers are good while some believers are not. Yet if a person gives money to charity but does so in order to get a tax break and praise from men [in other words out of a selfish motivation] can that be considered morally good? What is your definition and standard for what is morally good?
With all the terrible things that god does and commands his so-called chosen people to do how can you put him up as the standard of goodness that humans supposedly cannot reach. This would be laughable, accept I know you truly believe this. So it is just sad.
I didn't [yet] propose that God is the standard of goodness. I'm asking you to define your terms and provide a standard by which to measure. In using words like "good," "bad," and "terrible" to argue your position, you're assuming standards of good, bad, moral, immoral, etc. I'm asking you to define your standard and to give an account for it.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?