Epicurean Paradox

[genkaus]

EXACTLY! So then why use the bible to establish the works, attributes and will of God and then prohibit the use of the very same bible, to answer an accusation based on a biblical term? Why is it necessary to redefine that term by popular understanding rather than the absolute standard found in scripture? The same scripture you are willing to use to entrap God with?

IF "definitions provide an objective and fair standard for passing judgment." then why would any reasonable man refuse the use of the same source you used to define God, as a legitimate source to also define what you are accusing Him of?

What is this desperate need you all seem to have to separate God and the bible that defines Him? Are you speaking of a different god? Perhaps the god of the dictionary, therefore you must seek out the dictionary to define the principles of sin and evil as well?

If you want to talk real world, then I invite you to step into it. In the real world honorable men seek honest answers. Not conclusions pieced together from as many far flung sources one has to entertain to come to the conclusion he wants to find. If you are talking about the God of the bible then it is by the bible you are bound to define Him, and His methods. If you are speaking of the god of the dictionary or any other reference book then by all means use whatever reference material you need to crucify your god.

You seem to have no clue how judgments work in the real world.

Any fair and rational judgment does not and should not take place without any input from the person involved. Where the judgment is regarding the person's character, his/her input is all the more necessary. But it still doesn't replace objective, established standard for judgment.

In a beauty pageant, the contestants are allowed to tell the judges about themselves in their own words. They are allowed to introduce their qualities and tell the judges why they should win. But the judges still make the final decision according to established rules.

In a job interview, a candidate is allowed to explain why he'd be suitable for the job. But that explanation is not allowed to replace established criteria. In a criminal trial, the accused is allowed to present his case. He is allowed to explain his motivations, actions, state of mind etc., but he is not allowed to redefine the laws in his favor.

That is what we are doing here. Since your bible is supposedly the word of your god, then we are allowing your god to tell us about himself - about his characteristics, his will, his intentions and his actions. We are even willing to consider his views on morality. But we are not going to let him hijack and redefine the standards for judgment here. He will be judged according to the objectively established definitions. And judgment according to those is pretty clear. Either your god is impotent or malevolent or both. Either way, he's a liar.