General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

No the doctrine of Christ is limited to the first four books of the NT. That said the whole bible is indeed used to describe the nature of God.

So, following the whole bible is not a requirement to be a Christian.

That is between them and God.

Which means following the whole bible is not a requirement for them to be a Christian.

We are all allowed to seek God our own way, however this does not mean God is bound to honor our efforts.

Which means adding on bits and pieces from elsewhere is allowed as well.

That said if we seek God as our lined in scripture He will not only support us He will reward the faithful.

And what is supposedly "lined in scripture" is open to interpretation as well.

Because their is a common element you are missing in the three cults you have mentioned. The bible is not the only source in which those cults derive their beliefs and doctrine.

An element they share with the rest of the mainstream Christianity.

Once you stray from the bible add or cut out what you do not like you cease building your 'house' on the rock of Christ. Which means you cease being a 'Christian' by defination.

But, as you said, adding and cutting is allowed for mainstream Christianity - why not for the others?

Mainstream Christians (for the most part) do not do this. That is where the consistancy is you fail to see.

But they do do this. If there are any actual limits to the adding and cutting allowed then present them. So far, the only "limit" you gave is following NT - interpretation being up to the reader - and everything else is between them and their hypothetical god.

They do if you understand context and what was orginally written.

Nope. You've tried resolving them by playing the context card and it still doesn't work.

No, they are ALL Wrong to one degree or another.

Including yours, then. So why should we trust your interpretations of the bible and your statements about "what it means"?

I know you do not see the irony here as I do, but to a degree you are right in that because you can not resolve these 'logical' errors you loose faith.

Never had any to begin with.

The problem is, you from a point of pride assume that your understanding of God is indeed correct.

No, I understand from a point of rationality that all presented understandings of god are illogical. I've no obligation to sort out your messes for you.

For instance in your last paragraph you assumed that 'all are right in their view of God.' No questions just an assertion and a blanket statement. The a follow up assertion that supports your current beliefs.

That's not an assertion, that's a conclusion based on your statement that everyone is allowed to understand god in their own way.

When in fact all Christians no matter what their faith is, are wrong in their view of God in one degree or another.

Including you, apparently. So, why should I trust your statement that your god isn't illogical?

And, it is the same grace that we receive when we willfully sin, that helps us find forgiveness when we are worshiping and trying to love God with all of our being. (As the greatest command tells us)

That'd be your interpretation - which could be wrong.

We are finite God is infinate, so therefore none of us can have a complete understanding of God.

..and we are not expected to either.

So, you don't have the right answers, you are not expected to have the right answers, you admit to not having the right answers and yet you expect us to believe in your answers? I'll pass.

It does not include those covered by the attonement offered by Christ no.

That doesn't answer my question - are the non-worshippers included among the wicked or not?

(But as mat 7 tells us not all who say they are Christians/followers are indeed followers.)

Including you.

Again they are not because they have other 'holy books/writtings' the superceed the bible/Christ's teachings.

Which is apparently allowed for other mainstream Christians.

Ah, no.
Eu's First horn/paradox says that if morality is a standard greater than the 'gods' (plural because it was written to test the validity of the claim of the all powerful greek gods) then the gods were not omnipotent. Because again the standard is greater than the gods themselves making the one who put the 'pious standard' in place greater than the gods who have to obey them.

Sorry, my mistake - and thus your theology gets skewered in the ass by Euthyphro's second horn.

This statement presupposes that any standard is constant. If you believe this name one. Name an instant where it is NEVER ok to 'X'.

I don't. You do. You are the one who argues that your god's standard is constant.

The very nature of Morality is constantly moving as in man's world it is the lessor of two evil. On the other hand God's standard is Righteousness (not morality) and as such it is whatever He wants it too be, which is the true earmark of an All powerful God.

So my point stands - your god's standard is not constant.

Indeed, subjective to the one who spoke creation into existance.
(Before you respond take into consideration the irony of my last statament.)

Again - the point stands. Your god's morality is subjective.

Not at all. God's commands to Kill are like that of any nation. His command against Killing actually reads, "You shall not Murder." Note it says nothing about killing or the simple act of taking a life. The difference? If God commands the death of another, then the taking of human life is not what hold any righteous/moral value. It is the unsanctioned taking of human life that has been forbidden. rather the taking of life for your own reasons is what has been forbidden. That never changes.

You might want to recall the the context of this question.

vorlon13: "Or maybe go back to a classic, burn the house to the ground, slay the male off spring, steal the livestock, rape the women, and poison the well ???"

To which, your reply was - in effect - "Man's morality can be twisted to justify this sort of destructive behavior - it has nothing to do with god".

And yet, here you argue that this very behavior is justified if your god says so. That if your god commands it, all the raping, killing, pillaging, burning and stealing are moral things to do.


So, in conclusion, we've established that your god's morality is authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify all kinds of sick and twisted behavior. As far as you know, Hitler might have been acting on your god's command - he certainly claimed to.