General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

what I have said repeatedly is we as Christians have the freedom to build whatever picture of God we can fathom so long as this picture is continually evolving to match that picture found in the bible.

And apparently, whether or not it matches the "picture" in the bible is also open to interpretation.

That is why we have so many different legitimate denominations.

Can you name a few illegitimate denominations and the reasons for their illegitimacy?

well maybe string a few together and start a thread, and we will see if we can't take care a few of those for ya.

There is a multitude of threads all over the forum and you haven't been able to take care of them. I'm not holding my breath here.

who am I to judge who is ready for a deeper understanding and who is not? My task is to simply provide clarity when asked.

And the fact that your fellow Christians are apparently muddying the waters and making false claims about your god doesn't bother you?

who says? I have pointed out frodo is well with in his rights to be at whatever level of understanding he is at, as a Christian. It is only the wicked who need fear the wrath of God.

But doesn't your god consider not worshiping him to be wicked? And how does he react to spreading incorrect information about him?

Please explain your logic there.

I thought it was obvious:

You claim that your god's morality cannot be used to justify all the raping and killing and pillaging and that only man's morality can used to do that and yet, here we have a specific instance of raping and killing and pillaging being commanded by your god and those actions are justified based on that command.

I see only four options here:
1. The whole thing is made up. There was never an actual command and the events, if they happened, were the result of people doing terrible things in your god's name. In which case, the whole fantasy of bible being true and accurate runs into reality.
2. He did command it, but his moral views have changed since then.
3. He did command it and his morality remains the same today - in which case it doesn't matter if your god no longer issues such commands, they are still consistent with and can still be justified based on your god's morality.
4. Your god commanded something that was contradictory to his morality - which would make him a hypocrite.

that statement is proof positive that you do not understand basic biblical Christianity.

Are you claiming that your biblical morality is not absolutist and authoritarian?

are you really so ignorant of history you do not know of the propaganda campaign hitler under took to dehumanize the Jews? It may have started out in anger, but the nazis quickly fabricated/provided fact and reasoning to justify their final solution. It started with 'natural selection/Darwinian' arguement that say they were a genetic throw back/cave man who was holding the Arian race down and keeping it from being a world power to the reason Germany lost the First World War, to the reason Germany could never afford to pay all the reparations for loosing the war, to their economic situation. The Jews had to go and it was every red blooded Germans moral obligation to ensure that not one Jew was left.

Are you really so stupid that you can't read your own argument. By your own admission, they fabricated the facts and reasoning. There so-called moral obligations were not based on any actual facts. Which is what makes it irrational.

Facts have nothing to so with truth. Facts are statement that can be proven or disproven. The German people were overwhelmed with 'facts.'

Facts have everything to do with the truth. A fact (derived from the Latin factum) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. If something is disproven, then it is not a fact. Truth is a statement that corresponds to facts. The Germans were overwhelmed with lies presented as factual, which were not facts.

actually no. Interpretation of a definition has no bearing on whether or not the definition is well defined.

Yes, it does. The whole point of a definition is to convey the meaning of the thing it refers to and if that communication is so bad that it can be interpreted in many different ways, then it was poorly defined to begin with.

---

Please use the source and refute, or your assertion will be dismissed.

Sure.

Here are your definitions:

Sin : anything outside the expressed will of God.
Evil : a willful endulgence or delight in being outside the expressed will of God.

Here are your links:
Sin : http://studybible.info/vines/Sin%20(Noun%20and%20Verb)
Evil : http://studybible.info/vines/Evil,%20Evil-doer

Go to the page and see if your definition is given there - should be easy, you just press ctrl+f and do a search.

If you can't find it, then your source doesn't support your definition. Hence, refuted.

---

Do you not understand a simple majority belief in a given society defines reason for that society?

Do you not understand that argument from majority is a logical fallacy and therefore not rational?

There were 72 million people who lived in Germany at the start of the war. The vast majority supported the nazi party and what it believed. Therefore in that time for those people they had a sound 'reasoned' belief, and solution.

Wrong. Majority support does not make a belief sound. For a proposition to be sound it has to be logically concluded from factual premises. Theirs', as you said, wasn't.