General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

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

The bible repersents two sepret and distinct religions. OT Judaism and NT Christianity. If one wants to be an OT Jew he is bound by the laws of the OT. However if one seeks to be a Christian that person is free to live as bound as an OT Jew or as Paul states 'free from the law, as a means to righteousness.'

The righteousness required for eternal life can only come through attonement. To receive attonement, one must seek it as Christ instructs in the NT.

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

The bible repersents two sepret and distinct religions. OT Judaism and NT Christianity. If one wants to be an OT Jew he is bound by the laws of the OT. However if one seeks to be a Christian that person is free to live as bound as an OT Jew or as Paul states 'free from the law, as a means to righteousness.'

The righteousness required for eternal life can only come through attonement. To receive attonement, one must seek it as Christ instructs in the NT.

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

what are bits and peices?

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

actually no. Because God will not support our own efforts. Your failed faith (Because God never gave you 'proof' because you did not seek Him as instructed) is testament to that.

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.

[You=quote]
An element they share with the rest of the mainstream Christianity.
[/quote]
Actually, the book of mormon is unique to mormons. The watch tower chronicles are unique to the JW, and David koresh is unique to the branch davidians.

No other form of christianity share belief or a common source to these indivisual religion's doctrine. Again just incase you really as slow as you are pretending to be here; The mormon's beliefs center around the book of mormon first. meaning if the book of mormon says 'a' and the bible says 'b' then the book of mormon's authority over the bible is recognized first. like wise with the other two.

Because their beliefs center around a source outside of the bible, they can not be considered Christians simply because the bible is the only book that contains the teachings of Christ which again by defination are parramount to be considered a 'CHRISTian"

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

Where did i say this?

I think you built a straw man here. I said Christians are only responsiable to what we are given over to understand in the bible.

Again, the mormons JW's and Davidians do not follow the teaching of the bible. They have their own holy books/teachers.

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.

Again what you want to talk past is the fact that in mormonism it does not stop at ignoring the parts of the bible one can not reconsile. The bible has been completely replaced with a completely different doctrine.

The book of mormon is touted as the "third testament."

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

show me where you think it does not work.

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

Including mine, that is why I said ALL ARE WRONG!
Therefore one needs the same attonement offed by Christ, to attone not only for our sins but our misspent worship as well.

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.

what makes you think I need anything sorted out? I am not the one making claims of the nature of God, Christianity, or the bible that have been proven beyond incorrect. I am not the one using a 4th graders sunday school understanding of God and tring to superimpose it on to a failed arguement.

Your version/understanding of God is completly irrational. i completely agree. However if/when you get ready to speak of the God of the bible you are going to have a more difficult time HONESTLY making that same claim. The only way you can even try to make that claim is if you burry your head in the sand even deeper than it is now, and pretend we are indeed talking about the same God.

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.

Then your reading comperhension is beyond lacking. Show me where I made the claims you are answering.

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

The primise of basic Logic is not determined in a claim for or against. Logic is determined by reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. To validate is to independantly test and confirm. I provide principles about God that can be tested and confirmed.
See my A/S/K thread for recent examples.

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

Actually no. I have not interpereted anything.
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprit/verb: interpret; 3rd person present: interprets; past tense: interpreted; past participle: interpreted; gerund or present participle: interpreting
1. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
I do not have to explain anything, it is clearly written
I made verfiable statements:

1)To worship God incorrectly is a sin. (Ask for verses and I can provide them.)

2)All sins are forgiven in Christianity, less blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.

Again, no interpretation needed as forgiveness of sin is a foundational principle of Christianity.

So, you don't have the right answers, you are not expected to have the right answers,

not all of them no. Just the ones we have been intrusted with.

you admit to not having the right answers

You are an intelectually dishonest person. This conclusion presupposes or twists what i said into the assertion that all my answers are wrong.

This is not the case. No one Can have all the right answers except God Himself. As I am not God I can not have all the right answers.

and yet you expect us to believe in your answers?I'll pass.

All i expect is you make an honest effort to determine the truth for yourself. My role here is to simply point you in the right direction.

However if you are one of the deer in the headlight type of people then maybe it is better that you do 'pass' and let the truck hit you. that way you will allow the next deer the oppertunity to be lead off the road to simply stand there and watch the lights get brighter, as you do.

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?

the status of 'worship' is not a consideration concerning the wicked. However if you are incorrectl trying to use the word worshiper as a synomn for believer the answer is yes. As non believers are considered wicked.

Including you.

maybe you should take the plank from your eye, before you try and dig out specks in mine.

Which is apparently allowed for other mainstream Christians.

such as?

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

how so?

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

Yes, and that standard has nothing to do with specific action, rather our obediance to God whatever action we are to take.

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.

Actually your point fails hard. As it is a simply mind's belief that 'standards' can only deal with specific actions and not general obediance. (from which we have even been freed.)

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

Unsupported claim. Please demonstrate.

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.

I do not see your point. because all the things you've listed here and misattributed to the passage in 1 sam to the nature of God, has infact been the battle cry for the rise of every empire from that time to this (including the english empire and the rise of the United States) with or without God as the head of a nation. Which means this is an attribute in grained in the hearts of Man and not God.

If this was an attribute of a conquoring God then these acts would indeed be apart of every conquest God has made. Which again is neother here nor their because the acts themselves are not what is being evaluated, rather the Isrealites obediance to God, in that specific instance.