General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

frodo beat me to my two goto's. The branch davidians, and the jones towners are two more. Basically anyone who replaces the doctrine of Christ with the teachings of a false prophet and yet still wish to be called Christians.

Since you are willing to quote any part of the bible as justification for your beliefs, I'd assume the whole bible qualifies as "the doctrine of Christ".

1. A lot of mainstream Christians don't follow the bible completely. They pick and choose which parts apply. They also accept the works of other Christian theologians and philosophers (such as adding in the concept of omni-benevolence according to you). But you have no problem calling them Christians who are "seeking god in their own way".

2. Mormons do believe in the bible and like mainstream Christians, they add other stuff to it and pick and choose what to believe. But they are not Christians.

3. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the bible too, but they pick and choose as well and add their beliefs. But they are not Christians.

4. The same goes for Branch Davidians who are also not Christians.

I'm not seeing any consistency here.

and there are quit a few more that I have. Just because you do not like or agree with what I have said does not mean you do not have an accurate biblically based answer.

Biblically based answers don't automatically resolve the logical issues of your god.

why should it? We are only responsible to what has given us over to understand about Him. I maybe a hand in the body of Christ while my brother maybe a foot. Just because my perspective is different than his doesnot mean we are both wrong nor both right. It just from out fix point of time space and personal capasity for knowledge of ?God we may have a different understanding.

And all the different understanding may be correct? That is why your god is illogical. In reality, when people understand things in a conflicting and contradictory manner, then all views cannot be correct. But apparently, where your god is concerned, anything goes.

My passage in psalms 11 as well as my pervious references to what Christ said about the wicked define what and who God sees as wicked. (The unrepentant heart is among that list.)

And that does not include people who don't worship him?

it depends on the person, and their heart.
If an unrepentant person seeking to cause a believe to stumble or fall, then harshly. For the Christian doing his best to comprehend a given aspect of an infinite God, and is willing to take correction and direction.. He will be offered the same atonement given when he willfully sins. (With grace)

So, basically, all the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses and Branch Davidians are Christians because as far as we know, its your god they claim to comprehend and there is no evidence of disingenuity on their part.

Option 5: the act of raping and killing in of themselves have nor hold any intrinsic value. (Meaning they are morally neutral) until God makes a decree or command concerning a given act.

In short this is how it is ok for God to command what is being discussed in 1sam and other OT passages, and restricted these same acts in other parts of the bible.

Which is consistent with His title of Alpha, and Omega (the beginning and end) this title means that their is nothing above God not even the governing principles of 'morality.' This title means God has control over what is right and what is wrong, rather than the acts themselves have a set moral value. In short a given act is only wrong because God says it is in a given instant.

And thus your theology gets skewered in the ass by Euthyphro's first horn.

If the moral value of an act depends on when the command is issued then your god's morality is not constant.
If it depends on your god's command and not anything about the act or the circumstances surrounding it, then it is subjective.
And here, since god gave the command to kill (thus making it moral and not morally neutral) and he later considers the same action immoral, then your god's morality is self-contradictory.

So glad you picked this option.

see above explaination

According to that it is absolutist and autoritarian.

maybe you do not see that even now we fabricate facts and reasoning, just like they did.

And anything based on those fabrications isn't rational either.

Maybe you also do not understand that all it takes for a fabricated 'fact' to become an absolute truth is popular belief.

No, popular belief has no influence over facts.

Example, most atheist Americans believe that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. I have argued this ad nausium. Even in the light of the recorded history @ Monticello.org

The facts remain that Jefferson was a solid Christian, yet popular belief places him as an atheist. http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
How much long do you think before history is changed to support the current popular belief? How long before the supporting documentation of Jeffersons faith is lost?
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-...e/Religion

Granted Jefferson was no respecter of religion, but he did acknowledge God, and was a devout church goer/seeker of God.

What American atheists believe about Jefferson has little bearing on the facts. I've no problem concluding on the basis of your evidence that he was a Christian Deist.

However, I am a little surprised that you would consider him Christian. According to you, simply going to Church shouldn't make him a Christian. His beliefs clearly diverged a lot from what you call "doctrine of Christ" - to the extent he tried to revise it. And I doubt you consider a lot of his beliefs "biblically supported".

But, he called himself a Christian and I have no problem regarding that as a fact.

Maybe you do not know me so well, but the others here should know I am a 'fact' checker. I am constantly scrutinizing words, their meaning and source orgins.

I know how cursory your scrutiny is and how frequently you fail at it.

If I say a fact is a statement that can be proven or disproved then, know I generally have several sources that will support what I have said.

A fact can be proven or disproven and once it is disproven, then it is no longer a fact. That is what I argued and that is what is in the links you provided.

You also said "Facts have nothing to do with truth" - and your wiki source proves you wrong. I'm not sure what the other one is or why is it supposed to be reliable.

I disagree. A definition is neutral in how people want to use it. Case in point the word 'fact.'

The purpose of a definition does not depend on your agreement.

The good people at auburn.edu as well as the other two reference I listed define a fact as a verifiable statement, and yet despite several clear cut definitions you have insisted that a fact always pertains to truth.

A verifiable statement is one that can be shown to be true. If it is shown to be wrong - i.e. it does not represent reality as it is - then it is not a fact.

Is the definition at fault for being unclear? Or are you for adding to it to support personal belief?

No, your comprehension skills are at fault. The definition is quite clear - as evidenced by the fact that most people do get what it means.

You do know what a summery is correct? It's when one takes two or three pages of info and condenses the information down two a couple of sentences.

A definition is the summary of what a word means. The links you gave provided definitions, which means they'd already summarized the meaning.

Next I need to ask you if you understand the concept of refutation?

Sure, its when I prove you wrong - like I did here.

In order to refute something one must find contradictory information.

No, in order to refute someone I just need to show that either the basis or the reasoning is invalid. In this case, I showed an absence of basis.

Now with those two concepts in mind find where my summation contradicts the two pages of source material I provided. That is what I asked you to do. Not find where I plagiarized these two pages of text.

Now, with that concept in mind, you simply need to validate your basis to refute my refutation. Go on, I'll wait.

so Darwinism is not rational?

It is rational - but not due to its popularity.

Homosexuality (both sides of the arguement) is a perfect example of majority support, being a sound belief.

50 years ago beating and oppressing gay people was indeed ones societal responsibility. Now the opposite is true. Why one and not the other? In short the only reason is

majority beliefs changed.[/quote]

That majority belief changed doesn't mean each instance was sound. Oppressing gay people 50 years ago was an unsound and irrational position. Then society corrected itself.

The limit is different for each of us.

Christ describes these limits in the parable of the talents.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV

If God gives you the capacity for a level 3 understanding then it is to that 'level 3' that you must remain faithful.

However if you get that ability for a 'level 7' and you stick around level 3 then you have exceeded the grace God is willing to give you.

So, you have no objective basis for saying that the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses or Branch Davidians are not Christians. In fact, you have no basis for saying anyone isn't Christian. Everyone else could simply be "understanding god at a different level".

---

Like I said genkaus, I don't think there's an argument either. So if the views are comparable what is your objection? You don't seem to have one.

No objection. Just pointing out that view are not compatible.