Man's morality

[Drich]

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.

Agreed.

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.

No. For your arguement to work I have to interperate what is plainly written in scripture. No interpertation is needed. It is clearly defined.
Christ himself limits the terms and conditions of Christianity in mat 7.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Christ clearly draws a line between True Christians and those who only think their Christians.

Again No interppertation needed When Christ the founder of this religion makes a clear cut division between 'A true Christian' and one who goes through the motions.

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.

Then why isn't the majorty of christianity practiced this way? look at catholicism, it is works based. It claims to be the orginal version of Christianity. If it is as you say, and christianity was based in a 'works free enviorment' to attract members then why was their a focous on works for 2/3's of the church's history?

I can tell you why, because the 'church' followed man's morality and ascribed it to God. Our morality then like now is based on works, and our default to morality is based on works. so when we wander from God our works based sense of 'morality' takes over. Because this is the heart and mind of man at it's best. God being seperate and apart from man, has established a righteousness that does not make sense to man, so we do not naturally adapt to it.

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.

It's not a loaded question because One can identify the act of murder without making a moral judgement. The fact that every culture considers murder a crime is irrelevant. The reason you need to classify this as a loaded question is because it disproves your assertion that man act's are netural in the sight of other men.

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

Good thing we are not.

It's not over yet, we will see.

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.

As far as dismissals go...

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.

Good thing that's not the case. Because "X" is still the standard. "X" is what everyone who has not accepted Christ will be held to account for, therefore "X"/The Standard has not changed.

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

No.

Then maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[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.

No. We are judged in the after life, to decern whether or not we have shown ourself to truly want to spend eternity with God or to be eternally seperated from Him. In this seperation we are free from him or His rules.

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.

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

From your perspective you can say they have been misidentified or misrepersented. In 1920' and 30' germany they had no way to to identify this misrepersentation, because of the book burnings there was no point of reference therefore for them the 'facts' changed.

again because hitler thought and taught as you do "That facts do not change" all he need do was remove what he indentified as propaganda, and supplied 'facts' to the german people and they held them as absolutes. North Korean leadership has also done this for 3 generations to great benfit in keeping the kim's in power.

This way of thinking is dangerous because it does not lend itself to truth, there are no real absolutes. and without them a people are doomed to go where ever the 'facts' (and those who control the facts) lead them.

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

I will try

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.

I did not say it was factual, but that it was upheld as fact, and taught as fact. Then that fact changed when more information was made avaiable.

This is what the Nazi's and North korea has done. They equate ALL fact as truth as you have, then elimate all information except the facts they provide leaving a fact based public to only one possiable conclusion..,.

Now how do you differ in your worship of 'facts?'

If your ablity to worship 'fact' as truth was somehow limited, how would you possiably know if the fact you had were indeed factual? How are you any different than a person living in nazi germany or N/korea, if everything you are is based on 'facts' that can change based on knoweledge that may or may not be avaiable?

The problem with fact worship is the lie needed to hold it all together. The lie is that 'facts' are indeed Absolute truth. (or they are treated as such.) When in truth the changing nature of fact disqualifies it as absolute truth. Because absolute truth does not change, while facts do.

without absolutes, your 'truth'/facts becomes a controled variable. This variable then because a matter of will to the people or to men like the Kims or even to a hitler. (The content/results may vary, but the method of control remains the same.) however if there are any absolutes to compare to (like say God's truth) then soceity has the chance of refinding center again.