Man's morality

[genkaus]

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.

Thank you for laying out the detailed, step-by-step generation of your particular brand of No True Scotsman fallacy.

First of all, there is no reason to assume that whatever crap is written in your Bible can be validly considered as a criteria for a "True Christian" - much less what is written in Mat 7.

Second of all, in the absence of the words "here are the terms and conditions for being a True Christian", there is no indication that the verses you quoted are meant to draw the line between True and False Christians - that is your subjective interpretation. The only thing a literal interpretation tells here is who can't enter Heaven - and even that is not made very clear.

Third of all, and quite interestingly, I might add, literal interpretation of this verse undercuts the point you've been making all along - that your god's morality is not based on works. Here, your Christ asks people to do god's will and speaks against those who practice lawlessness - clearly, he regards your works as the criteria for entering heaven. Its just that those works don't happen to include prophesying in his name or casting out demons or doing wonders.

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?

You miss the point - the whole works-free propaganda is only to attract followers. Once you become a follower, the religion has to milk you for all you are worth, which means, shifting the focus back on works. This is just one of the many fundamental contradictions within Christianity.

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.

Actually, that wasn't my assertion.

If you think you can identify an act of murder without a moral judgement then go ahead and try.

The reason you can't is because the definition of murder that you appeal to is "unjustified killing". The reason you appeal to this definition is because that is the only way you can excuse all the horrific killings committed or commanded by your god - your excuse is that those killings were justified. And in regarding them as justified, you are making a moral judgement.

It's not over yet, we will see.

No, we won't.

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.

If the prior standard does not apply to those who've accepted Christ, then the standard has changed. No amount of dancing around it would change that fact.

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

Then maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Not an option.

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.

If separation from him and his rules is contingent upon judgement according to those rules, then we are not free from them and those rules are being forced upon us.

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.

I've already taken this point down. What do you hope to accomplish by simply restating a defeated argument?

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.

Facts don't depend on perspective - mine or yours. The the 1920's Germany could not identify the misrepresentation does not mean the facts were not misrepresented. That they did not have any point of reference before does not mean facts changed - just their knowledge of those facts.

That Hitler pushed propaganda as facts did not magically make his statements factual. No more than Kim's propaganda being factual.

That something is presented and accepted as fact does not make it one and any change in the presentation or acceptance does not constitute a change in facts.

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.

Repeat after me - "Something being upheld as a fact or taught as a fact does not automatically become a fact". Keep repeating until it sinks in.

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..,.

All facts are true by definition. What the Nazis and North Korea have done is misrepresent and lie about facts. That those lies are accepted as facs does not make them factual.

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

The difference is I don't worship 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?

Given that I don't worship facts, this argument doesn't apply.

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.

You've got your epistemology ass-backwards.

Neither truth nor facts are regarded as absolutes in any sense. Facts are the state of reality - they change with reality (but not by propaganda, as you've been wrongly claiming).

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.

False dichotomy. That the truth/facts are not absolutes does not makes them controllable variables. Which is why your whole argument falls flat on its face.