General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

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.

This does not counter my statement - "So, following the whole bible is not a requirement to be a Christian".

what are bits and peices?

Are you really asking for definitions of these simple words?

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.

Either "seeking him is your own way" is allowed all the way or it isn't or it is allowed within specific limits. If its allowed all the way - you have no basis for saying who is or isn't a Christian. If its not allowed - then Frod isn't a Christian according to you. If its allowed within limits - then you've failed to provide a clear picture of what those limits are or to apply them consistently.

FYI, something that never existed in the first place cannot fail.

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.

What they do share, however, is borrowing from sources other than the bible.

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"

Again, that's something they have in common with the rest of Christianity.
a. According to you, the bible says that god is not omni-benevolent.
b. Mainstream theologians say that your god is omni-benevolent.
Most Christians choose 'b' over 'a'.

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.

And that is your way of describing adding and cutting from the bible.

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

They say they do.

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."

No, I'm not looking past anything. Mainstream Christianity likewise ignores parts of the bible and adds stuff from different doctrines. As far as "completely replacing" goes, the Mormons say that they haven't done so.

show me where you think it does not work.

Just open any of your threads. Hell, just look at this thread.

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.

But that is your interpretation. You could be completely wrong and the right answer might be that accepting atonement is not required. Why should I believe you when you say that?

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.

You are - by your own admission. You are making claims about your god and Christianity and by your own admission, you are wrong.

Your version/understanding of God is completly irrational. i completely agree.

Its not my version, its the Christian version.

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.

No burying required.

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

Here:

I am not trying to break your understanding of the nature of God. Your entitled to build any picture you need to.

and here:

I have pointed out frodo is well with in his rights to be at whatever level of understanding he is at, as a Christian.

There maybe any more instances - but I'm not going to bother finding them. Two are sufficient to prove my point.

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.

Read it, didn't find anything matching the strict principles of validity.

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.

Unless you can find a verse that literally says "To worship God incorrectly is a sin" - then you are providing an interpretation.

If you say all sins are forgiven and I give you terms and conditions about which sins are not forgiven (apart from blaspheme of the Holy Spirit) and your try to "explain" those verses - then you are providing an interpretation.

Are these conditions acceptable to you?

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

But we can't even expect you know which those are.

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

It concludes by your admission that none of your answers are trustworthy - therefore it is incorrect to assume any to be right.

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 if you don't know which of your answers are right and have no way of knowing it - why would I trust any of them?

All i expect is you make an honest effort to determine the truth for yourself.

Been there. Done that. Found your theology to be a pack of lies.

My role here is to simply point you in the right direction.

Except, there is no reason to believe that the direction you point to is right.

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.

Oh goody - more of Pascal's wager.

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.

So, the requirement is believing in any god or believing in your god or believing in your specific interpretation of your god?

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

What plank?

such as?

Such as accepting the teachings of other theologians which, according to you, contradicts the bible.

how so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_d...Problems_2

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.

So, you admit to arguing that your god's standard is constant. And yet, you previously argued: "This statement presupposes that any standard is constant. If you believe this name one." - implying that you don't accept any standard as constant.

At some point, you have to stop shooting yourself in foot.

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.)

General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality - because he is being guided by the principle of obeying. The constancy of your god's morality is determined by what he commands and if his commands keep changing over time - which they do.

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

Unsupported claim. Please demonstrate.

Already demonstrated by your own admission of subjectivity. Back-tracking won't help you now.

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.

But you admitted that your god did command this actions. Of the four options given to you, there was a specific one indicating that this command has been misattributed and that your god never commanded such a thing and the bible is lying about it - you did not pick that. Which means there was no misattribution.

If this was an attribute of a conquoring God then these acts would indeed be apart of every conquest God has made.

Not if your god's commands change from time to time - as you admit they do.

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.

No, the commands are being evaluated. We are evaluating your god's morality and showing it to be authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify all kinds of sick and twisted behavior and the way to do that is to evaluate his commands.