Man's morality

[genkaus]

I honestly do not believe you guys truly understand this fallacy.
No true scotsman is only a fallacy when there aren't conditions placed on being a 'true scotsman' other than someone's opinion. There are factual biblically based conditions on Christianity therefore no true scotsman does not apply.

It seems you are the one ignorant of what the No True Scotsman fallacy entails. It doesn't apply when there are no conditions on being a true Scotsman or when those conditions are the result of someone's opinion - it applies when those conditions are generated ad hoc. Here, you are not only claiming that the criteria for being a Christian is enumerated in the Bible, you are claiming that the criteria applies as you've interpreted it. That's what makes your argument a No True Scotsman fallacy.

If God is a creation of man then why did we give God a value system that is completely forgein to us?

That's simple enough - a morality that values actions over intentions is a tough one to follow. Christianity is all about giving people the easy way out in order to attract more followers - which is why those who wrote it made it all about intentions and not actions.

Because our moral standards are based on the idea that acts themselves have a right and wrong value.

No they don't. Our acts are neutral.

Show me a culture that shows an indifference to murder (not killing but murder.)

Loaded question. Classifying a act of killing as murder automatically entails a moral judgement.

Unless you are to be judged by Him, on the bases of His standard.

Good thing we are not.

God's standards have not changed. Jesus Died because they did not/will not ever change. However because of His death we/Christians are no longer held to those standards that those who have not accepted Christ are still being held to. Everyone else, that's a different matter.

As rationalizations go, that's a pathetic one.

A standard is classified as such based on what it applies to. And if it no longer applies, then the standard has changed. If before, people were held to saying or doing X and now, they are held to "accepting Christ", then the standard has changed.

So do you now see a need to seperate the mordern defination of 'good and morality' from that of God's?

No.

So long as you're aware.

All I'm aware of is your claim that your god forces his standards upon us.

no, You only 'must do this' if you want to be apart of His creation. Those who wish to seperate themselves from Him are free to do so.

Not according to your prior argument. Freedom to separate oneself from him would mean being no longer bound by his standard of morality - which you claim is something he'd force upon us in afterlife.

Are you still apart of the culture? are you still connected to the 'grid?' do you still benfit from soceity and the results of the actions taken in the middle east? If yes to any of these questions, then the observation can be made that you do not seem too overly convicted to your 'political views' when they go against your 'morality.' Your just a objector in name only. As such my points still stand.

Well, the answer to all those questions is 'NO'. So, your point fails.

Not to mention, the questions themselves are malformed and the conclusions do not follow. Even if I was a part of the culture or connected to it, it would not automatically imply my being a part of all aspects of that culture, nor would it imply complicity with all parts. Therefore, the observation that my political views go against my morality would be invalid.

Indeed. but so is every step we take that takes us further from God.

If its your god we're talking about, then every step taken away from his morality is a sign of moral growth.

Do you want example of Nazi propaganda that changed the Historial facts concerning the 'aryan' race?

Sure. Give me an example of propaganda that actually changed facts rather than just misidentifying and misrepresenting them.

my mistake Statement OR Belief, not statement of belief.

You really need to work on your language - it's getting pretty pathetic.

Yet the identification of pluto's planetary status was herolded as Fact.

And yet, it wasn't. Thus showing that not everything that is regarded as a fact is not factual.

Actually it does. You may not like that fact, but pluto was considered a planet since it's discovery. It wasn't till a few years ago did that fact change. The is a clear cut example of a fact being altered to reflect a different understanding of a given belief.

Have you forgotten the definition of 'fact' that you quoted yourself? A fact is a description of reality as it is, not as it is considered to be. That Pluto was considered a planet does not make its planetary status a fact. The human understanding of fact was corrected - the fact itself remained unchanged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Text_books
The facts in these text books were change to reflect Nazi propaganda. Nazi Children were also taught 'facts' did not change as well. wonder why?

And in being changed, they were no longer facts. Once again, work on your English or you won't even understand these simple concepts.

How so?

How so, what?