God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

[The Grand Nudger]

---

If you acccept the fact that they (other countries) have 'laws' in the first place you are acknoweledging their basic soverenty as a country to issue laws with in their boarders, and you acknoweledge that if you are ever in that country you are subject to those laws whether you agree to them or not.. This is all the compliance I am looking for in this arguement. now just keep this in mind.

No, Drich, I don't have to recognize their authority to recognize that they wrote a law. This is getting tedious. Despots in lawless areas have laws, I've been to areas like this, I didn't recognize their authority then, I still don't now. I acknowledge authority when that authority can demonstrate it's claim to such as valid. I don't salute every single motherfucker who stands on top of a dumpster yelling "I'm the king of the trash can!".........

Again no. I am just trying to map and plan for your eventual exit strategy if, and when you run out of arguement. If you plan to hit the 'panic button' if you get in trouble, then I will have waisted a large effort. So in a sense I pressed it for you, to see if you were ready to leave the Authority of God by the wayside, and harp on your 'morality.' If so, then their is nothing more i can say because of what I understand 'morality' to be. How can I discuss absolutes with someone wanting to discuss variables? It is far easier for me to conceed the outcome you have set yourself up for without a tremoundous waste of time on my part.

My morality may be an interesting aside, and I may have serious doubts about a moral claim that follows from the notion I'm asking a question about...but ultimately that's irrelevant to the question I asked as well, I just want to know "how" blood sacrifice and vicarious redemption are supposed to atone for anything. If all you have is "because god said so"....then mentioning that this "authority" is completely vapid is directly on point, not an exit. If you don't want to see something questioned don't offer it up so conveniently. If you could answer the question of "how" you wouldn't see so much about why i disagree with the morality or goodness of this little gem anyway, it's your insistence on talking around the issue that leads to my repeatedly hammering those things as well.

It's supposed to test the waters to see if you are willing to accept the authority God has to say Blood needs to be spilled to atone for sin.

Irrelevant, because again, even though I wouldn't personally pay this price that has nothing to do with whether or not the product can do what it says it can do on the label.

How do you know this to have always been true? Do you know or remember if you existed before you were born? Can you say that you did not agree to this life with God to be 'tested' for the next?

It's so hard for you to accept my opinion of this mess that you'd rather imply that my pre-birth opinion might have been different? You have a habit of doubling down on ridiculous bullshit. I'll play though. Pre-birth I may have been a groveling sycophant...I've since learned better. Tada.

Someone who has established a righteousness apart from God. A personal form of righteousness. I am not calling you evil nor anyone like you evil, but Satan and those who have followed Him had a righteousness that differed from God's established righteousness as well. Again not to say you are on his level, just on the same path leading away from God.

You must have misunderstood my question....because you answer...to who wouldn't be turned off by this atonement strategy you haven't explained...was Satan....and I agree....but I don't think that this is what you meant to say.

Those who want to be with God to the exclusion of everything else.

I was not looking to establish authority. i was first looking for acceptance or acknoweledgement of the standard of this 'forgein country's laws.'

The fact that the very same God who call the universe into creation, has established these laws. This is where the authority comes from.

Has anyone here the authority of God?

Drivel, and irrelevant. It's not even a question of authority - that's your own baby, I asked "how" it is supposed to work. It's state law that I have to wear a seat belt...but seat belts don't work "because we've written the law"................. I think it's likely that you'd rather babble on about the authority of a character in a fairy tale because you have no answer to my question, never had an answer to my question.....-and you knew that this was the case-.

I do not know what you mean. If you judge God by your own standard you are 'holding God to a lower standard.'

Again it is because you judge god from a personal standard. With such a standard you can move God up or down your very own scale and not be wrong.. The only problem with doing that is you have no real authority to have your 'judgement' mean anything outside of your own life. It's like going to court to fight a speeding ticket. Even if you find the whole process to be unjust and in contempt of your 'morality' in the end you WILL pay your ticket or loose your license. Your 'judgements' mean only as much as your authority will carry out what you have decided. It all boils down to God having the power to do what His will demands, and you being subject to that power.

More of the same...sigh. Even if my standards are low as some intrinsic part of being human...I still hold humans to a higher standard (on that low scale) than you're asking me to hold your god to. Not a very good way to establish authority Drich. Similarly, I can go to court and contest my speeding ticket by showing that I wasn't speeding, the court has no authority to levy a fine upon me for an infraction I do not commit...you see I'm not being tried on grounds of morality at traffic court. That much should be obvious. You end this particular bit of moaning with the standard "Might makes right" shit, am I to bow to your tyrant because he's capable of being a tyrant? Again, I hold human beings to a higher standard than this.

If the girl/boy of your dreams loves another, but does not love you.. Does it mean that He/She does not love? Or that they simply do not love you? Now what if you got to experience that love from that person ever so breifly, and then it was taken from you... That is what I am describing here.

You're describing no such thing...and how it would be relevant to the question I asked if you were is beyond me.

Hence the Judgement. It been my 'experience' that after such a judgement their is no doubt. Their is much lamenting and sorrow, but their is no doubt.

Hence the judgement? Hence how..hence from what? Jesus christ Drich..........

The 'two edged sowrd' part I experienced it to mean that every aspect of your life, thought and deed is broken down past your inner dialog to the core reasonings you did x instead of y. This is done for every desision you made in your life in an instant. (This is what i saw in the eyes of Christ) Thier is no need for reason or evidence because you are 'testifying' against yourself.

By reference to your "core reasoning".....try not to argue against the beginning of a claim with the end of the same claim. It's seen as good practice in forming reasonable claims. So, I take it you no longer believe (as you did in your last post) that god requires no reasons. Good, that's an improvement. Still won't make his reasons compelling...but at least he has them all of a sudden.

You accept the judgement because you know everything is true. All of the BS you are telling yourself now is sliced away by the Word or Christ and what is left, are the raw core emotions and self serving behaivors that drive the need to justify our deeds with 'morality' to ourselves.

What BS? Pick some bs, and demonstrate that it is so. What deeds am I attempting to justify with my refusal to participate in scapegoating?

Then you better get right with Jesus.

See, you weren't going to let god make right on the promise you made for him after all. Even if I want to be seperated from some part of his creation...that you assured me would be the effect of not believing....I still have to "Get right"...tell Jesus he can go fuck himself for me next time you two have a chat eh?

Again Hell is the absence of Creation.. Unless you can point to one of the days in creation and identify when it was created.

Your in luck! Hell fits the bill!!

The Pit, The Void, The Darkness, The Great Emptyness all describe Hell. It doesn't sound anything like the creation of Genesis to me. To me it sounds as if it is the absence of creation you seek.

What keeps me from wandering into creation...since I get to be separated from him and all that he is? How does he enforce his shuffling of human envelopes? I don';t get to be separated from -everything- after all....now do I?

Maybe God has given me simple reasoning ablities for a purpose. I see thing simply and I understand them simply. I have a very hard time reading or even listening to someone explain how something works. I have always had to figure things out on my own. In order to do this I have always had to break them down to their most fundemental core elements and then with my basic understanding build a working model I can understand. From these foundations I can build very complex and technically accurate structures. (Which has helped me build technical manuals and training programs for people in my industry with relitive ease. I have taken this 'gift' and applied it to things like this for people like you.)

What purpose? God wanted you to consistently fail at giving an account of who he is, what he does, how he does it, and why we should "get right" with him? Sounds counterproductive. If you have a gift Drich...then fucking apply it...stop jerking your dick...and provide me with a technical manual for blood sacrifice and vicarious redemption.

If my explaination of Heaven/Hell or the after life does not sound like the same old stuff you are use to argueing then I can switch back to a more traditional vocabulary for you IF you are having trouble with connecting what I have said with the biblical records of these places. Or you can simply ask me to provide scripture to back up what has been said so far.

In truth I am just trying to break down what the bible says and give it to you in terms revelant to a modern understanding of how we process information.

It -is- the same old stuff, but you, like missionaries before you...seem to think that your message is original. Why would I give a shit what your Book of Shadows says? Does it explain how blood sacrifice and vicarious redemption work? If it does I'm wondering why that explanation hasn't made an appearance yet.

Not if it has been what I am tasked to do.

You were asked to explain how god offers atonement, but I have appreciated the opportunity to take a piss all over the rest of the shit you offer in lieu of the explanation you didn't have. Do you know why this is even important Drich? Because you offered that quip about atonement up as part of a commentary on something else. It forms part of your premise or assertions.....you're hoping to draw a conclusion from this claim of atonement. If you can't justify this..then even if you were to form a valid argument based upon it the conclusion would be stillborn.

Says the man who admits to hating God. If Hate drives your relationship with God would it not also effect your understanding of Him, would it not warp everything you know to the negitive?

Actually Drich, it's your opinions that I loathe..you haven't told me anything about god (mostly because you don't know anything about god-or, supposing that you do, you are incapable of or unwilling to demonstrate that this is so), this has all been autobiography. My "relationship" with god is the same as my relationship with the Aaron (of Titus fame), for exactly the same reasons. Amusingly, I'm more sympathetic to Aaron because, at the very least...his fans don't insist that he actually existed...that he actually did all the horrible things he is said to have done in the narrative. As a character he is compelling, and as a lover of fiction I appreciate that..but as an actual being he would be horrid. The same is true of your own fantasies of god. This all, of course, is my opinion.

I have answer your question 4 times now. In that God said so. The simplicity of this answer seem to have gone completely over your head. allow me to explain, God established His right and authority to rule over this realm when He called all of creation to being.

Your fantasies did no such thing, they are patently incapable of doing such a thing. Your answer to this question ends at "Because god says so"? I think that you'd like it to end there, but I don';t think that it does. That's just a preamble.

With this authority He set a standard of Righteousness. It is to this standard He also set a penality for breaking it. (death) And subsequently paid this penality with his Son's very life. So God's authority, God's Rules, God's penality, God's attonement.. Why this standard? Again, it all boils down to, Because God said so.

What authority? But nevermind, it wouldn't matter, because gods authoprity is ultimately irrelevant.

"Because I say so, because I have the authority to say so - and here is how I'm going to make it so-" The bolded bit is what you are lacking..and what would answer my question.

His country His 'Law' his sovernity. As I said in the beginning of this post of you acknoweledge that God has the rights of what a sovern nation has to create laws, then you acknoweledge God has His own Rights to create His own Laws, Over his own boarders. then you have to condeed the idea that whatever his reasons for calling for death as the Only punishment suitable for sin. Why because being sovern ruler over His realm He indeed has the right to do as He wishes.

The "for whatever his reasons" part -might- be an explanation (so long as they contained a mechanism). This is just a long winded excuse.

Now for the bad news as a member of creation, you are indeed with in the borders of His 'country.'

No, I'm not, because I don't live between your ears Drich.

Maybe to someone who see Himself going there. I no longer fear Hell. (not like I did went I woke up from it anyways) I have since shift from a fear of Hell to following God through Hell if He were to lead me there.

Then you and I fear hell in exactly the same measure for entirely different reasons.

So? Why would their be a need for evidence or 'reason' if you admit to your sins? Is that what they do where you come from? Put people on trial even after they plead guilty to see if they are actually innocent?

I don't know...you're the one who brought reasons back in earlier in the post. I wouldn't know why your ideal of tyranny requires anything at all...but that doesn't alter whether or not I do. Yes, actually, it is. A person can admit to a crime (and people often do) that they had not committed. If a man walked into a courtroom and admitted to assassinating JFK tomorrow would you just tie a rope around his neck and hang the fucker? I doubt it. Again, you ask me to hold your god to a lower standard than I hold human beings.

They are meaningless because you have taken your best sins and deemed them "goodness and Morality." Even if you do this understand your deeds are STILL SIN! Sin can only buy you death.

They are meaningless because you have endeavored to make them so in your responses. But, in typical christian fashion you'd rather point at me as though I had something to do with your damned fantasies.....

You know I was going to end my last post with: And now a plea for 'proof of God' in: 3.. 2.. 1.... and here it is!!! That is too funny!!!

I made no such plea in this statement....though I can make them all day long if you'd like. In truth, you're going to have to get around to satisfying that plea if this is ever going to rise from the level of my entertaining your personal tastes in myth.

Look man, if you'd rather talk about god's authority that's okay. It would make for a great thread, it would make for a great debate. It's not an answer to the question I asked you though. This is the trouble you're going to run into by being a missionary anywhere. People might ask you questions which you have not prepared an answer for. They may question an assumption that you have never even considered questioning. Being able to elaborate on your position and focus on the question they asked an only help you in whatever work you think you're doing. Trying to squeeze in as many of the talking points on that tired bullet point list you've been working from does not make for an effective ministry (hates god, justifying sinful actions, constant invocations of hell, "not serious", blah blah blah). Sometimes the best way to gain credibility with your audience is to simply admit that "you do not know". Sure, you may lose ground in some point you hoped followed from the claim...but ultimately you gain more ground in the arena of integrity..and that may allow you further leeway in continuing to bring the gospel to a hostile audience. The next door you knock on may not be anywhere near as aggressive as I am, but being able to answer my questions (or acknowledge questions for which you have no answer) can only help you better your message. The "undefeated apologist by brute strength of bare assertion and claims of victory" narrative you've been weaving about yourself is counterproductive.

---

TLDR Version-
You've made the claim that god offers atonement via vicarious redemption through a blood sacrifice. You have not explained how it occurs. You have made a reference to the authority of a god (you feel that this is somehow an explanation for everything...but you have not established why or how this is so), but you have not established that authority (to be fair, I don't expect you to be able to do this, and you don't have to do this to answer my question).

- All that would be required to answer my question is the explanation of how, which is the area you've paid the least amount of attention to.

I'm guessing it's magic. That's what I'd put my money on.