Please improve your spelling. Turning on spell-check shouldn't be that hard.
It doesn't do that either. There are no limitations applicable to the concept of non-requirement.
You mean like omni-benevolence and papal authority.
Meaningless equivocation - the only ways of "seeking" that your god would honor should be regarded as the ways that are allowed. "Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks".
I was never a part of Christianity - so I have no idea which part of my representation would make you think I was. And I can't change what I don't know.
According to your arguments, mainstream Chrsitianity does that as well. So, its not a blind assertion, its based on what you argued.
Unless you are now arguing that Catholics aren't Christians either, Christians do say that your god is omni-benevolent.
Look it up on wiki - it states pretty clearly there that they follow the bible.
No, its based on your own arguments about how mainstream christian concepts are not biblical and sometimes contrary to it.
Still not seeing anything other mainstream Christians don't do on a regular basis. Other than treating those alternate sources as divine as well. Is that the condition? You are allowed to borrow from other sources, treat them as superseding the bible and ignore parts of bible as long as you don't consider them holy?
So, point of fact, they do teach doctrine out of bible - but not just the bible. Similar to rest of the Christians.
The point is invalidated by the fact that their books are different. However, the bible is a part of Mormon reading curriculum.
I just did. All of your threads are a testament to your failure.
Those words do not appear in your bible. Therefore, you were not quoting. You are putting stuff from your bible in your own words - therefore, interpretation.
Finally - this is the first time you've quoted without interpreting. As you can see, your previous statement "Therefore one needs the same attonement offed by Christ, to attone not only for our sins but our misspent worship as well." occurs nowhere in there - thus making it an interpretation and not a quotation.
I interpret it differently. You interpret "all" from "all have sinned" to refer to whole of humanity. I interpret it to refer to just the sinners, i.e. those who don't follow the law. Which means, there are two ways to "get right" - either have faith or follow the law.
Oh, I think you are wrong about your whole worldview - starting with your belief in god. But that is neither here nor there.
The pertinent point is this:
1. You are making claims about your god.
2. You are wrong about some things in your claims (your admission).
3. Therefore, some of your claims about god are wrong. (From 1 and 2)
Figuring out which parts are wrong is your mess and it isn't my problem to sort out. However until you do sort them out, don't make claims based on the assumption that all your assertions are right.
Not representing - repeating.
I don't have any "private" understanding of your Christian god. I simply take the version given by mainstream Christianity at its face value. In effect, what you are saying is that the mainstream Christianity is worshiping a bastardized version of your interpretation of biblical god.
Again - never had any faith and not angry. And I'm not sure how well mainstream Christianity would react to your assertion that their god is "not based on anything of this world nor of the next"
Clearly, he is even more easily pushed over - since most Christians pushed him aside for the bastardized version.
Meaningless equivocation - the only ways of "seeking" that your god would honor should be regarded as the ways that are allowed. "Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks".
The point is well-proven. Saying that you are allowed to write 2+2=5 but would be penalized for doing so is the same as saying you are not allowed to write 2+2=5.
The definition of validations isn't your problem. The absence of anything matching it is. Wonk waa.
Again, unless those passages literally say that "To worship God incorrectly is a sin", you are providing an interpretation.
Sure - but I'm not the one claiming not to provide interpretation, you are. So I am free to provide the verse AND its interpretation.
And, according to you, part of what you teach is wrong and you don't know which part.
You do.
Sorry, my mistake - I forgot that you think "honest attempt to determine truth" means "put your faith blinders on and believe in the bible".
I, on the other hand, say that an "honest attempt to determine truth" means "use rationals and critical without any faith".
Having done so, I have been there, done that, found your theology to be a pack of lies and all without being a man of faith.
And yet, others using the same bible are trying to point in another direction.
Again, not an ex-believer, nor angry. Just disgusted.
That's not a planck, that's a microscope.
Just how stupid are you?
I don't hold any specific beliefs regarding Christianity - I accept what they say at face value. You go around saying your god is omni-benevolent, I'm fine with that. You go around saying he isn't. I'm fine with that as well. Mormons say they are Christians because they follow the bible - okay. You say they aren't - fine. I'll just sit by and point out the contradictions.
My belief regarding Christianity is simple:
1. You say you believe in bible.
2. You say you believe in Jesus.
3. You say you are a Christian.
That's good enough for me. I'm just examining it with a microscope and point out all the funny little inconsistencies. I'm dissecting your faith and theirs - not my own because I had none to begin with.
Omnibenevolence. Multiple denominations. Medieval theologians. And according to you, it contradicts the bible.
As established in another thread on morality about an year ago - when you say "righteousness", you are simply using a fancy word for god's morality. So, basically, what you are saying here is "god's standard of morality is based on god's morality. And since we cannot meet that standard of morality on our own, he created a loophole".
Which amounts to a change in his morality.
Irrelevant and pathetic deflection. My statement was "General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality". Your attempt at misdirection has been noted and ignored.
Getting back to the actual argument:
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.
Ad-hom attacks don't work against demonstrable evidence.
The point being that your god's command of raping, killing and pillaging was not a misattribution and was consistent with his morality at the time. And yes, the point is to prove that I was right and I accept your concession.
You are not - I provided the wiki link to the problems associated the second horn. The problems your theology gets skewered with.
Oh, I've seen these arguments before. The only problem is, your god's morality is worse than shit decomposing at the bottom of a compost heap. And that is compared to the morality available to philosophers of that age. Since then, man's morality has been continuously evolving and getting better - so there is nothing disgusting enough for me to compare your god's morality to with respect to today's morality.
You see, the way you talk about personal standards ending up in toilet - that's where your god's standards already are. And I've no intention of letting mine sink that low.
The trick to avoid that is to make your own moral system as different from your god's as possible. Which requires identifying the salient features of your god's twisted morality - which would be authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify raping, killing and pillaging.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Then look at it from the other side. Maybe it is not supposed to out right counter your statement, but rather it defines the limitations of what you said.
It doesn't do that either. There are no limitations applicable to the concept of non-requirement.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I am asking for the examples you have labled bits and peices.
You mean like omni-benevolence and papal authority.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again we are allowed to seek God any way we wish. However that does not obligate God to honor our efforts.
You assume just because we are allowed or can do something that it will be equally as benficial as doing it God's way.
This is an unsupported assertion.
You are still thinking of Christianity as absolutist form of religion.
It seems you just cant quite comperhend basic grace, and the fundementals of attonement.
In an ecconomy (meaning In biblically based Christianity) of Grace one has freedom to worship God to the best of his own ablity.
Meaningless equivocation - the only ways of "seeking" that your god would honor should be regarded as the ways that are allowed. "Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks".
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: You speak of Christianity as if you were aprt of it at one time. Change the way you repersent it and i will no longer address you are one who formaly had a faith.
I was never a part of Christianity - so I have no idea which part of my representation would make you think I was. And I can't change what I don't know.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: You make far too many blind assertions. The three cults being discussed do not borrow anything. They supperceed bible with the words and instructions of their particular prophets (Written or verblaized.)
According to your arguments, mainstream Chrsitianity does that as well. So, its not a blind assertion, its based on what you argued.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Mainstream Christianity doesn't say God is omni benevolent. Catholic based religions do.
Even so this does not change the Doctrine of Christ in any way. Because God does indeed Love all his Children infinatly. It's just not all who dewell along side His children automatically belong to God.
Unless you are now arguing that Catholics aren't Christians either, Christians do say that your god is omni-benevolent.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again an unsupported assertion. Show me where 'they' do. Show me a link to an offical web site or something other than your 'word.'
Look it up on wiki - it states pretty clearly there that they follow the bible.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: this is another unsupported assertion.
No, its based on your own arguments about how mainstream christian concepts are not biblical and sometimes contrary to it.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Not familiar with the Mormon D&C?
This is another suplmentary book to the bible. It is a bible size book containing nothing but the Doctrines of mormonism and the covenants their god promised them for following these doctrine. Everything in that book superceeds the bible (just like everything in the book of mormon, as well as what is written in the 'pearl of great price.'
So if nothing in the 3 main mormon books contratict the bible, then the bible teachings stands. if however the teachings of any of these three specific mormon books contradicts the bible then the bible teaching has been deem to be 'corrupt over time, mis translated, or replace by the third testament of christ.'
Still not seeing anything other mainstream Christians don't do on a regular basis. Other than treating those alternate sources as divine as well. Is that the condition? You are allowed to borrow from other sources, treat them as superseding the bible and ignore parts of bible as long as you don't consider them holy?
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: So point of fact they do not teach doctrine out of the bible. They teach mormon doctrine out of their various books of doctrine. Even if one of their books mirrors a teaching of Christ as written in the bible, it is not from the authority of the bible that validates this teaching to the mormon. It is the fact that it was sourced, allowed, or confirmed in their book.
So, point of fact, they do teach doctrine out of bible - but not just the bible. Similar to rest of the Christians.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: A similar point can be made between OT judaism and Muslim beliefs. A simple example being is the Jews believe that to take the name of the Lord in vain is a very serious offense. as do the muslims. However this belief is not share because both holy books agree on this point, it is believed because their particular holy book says so. It really does not matter what the other book says. Mormonism is to Christianity as radical Islam is to Judaism. (Their cut throat behaivor happens in the next life, as apposed to the muslims in this life.)
The point is invalidated by the fact that their books are different. However, the bible is a part of Mormon reading curriculum.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: then it should be very easy to site an example.
I just did. All of your threads are a testament to your failure.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word interpertation. To interperet means to explain/to put into your own words. to reinterpret. I have not explained anything in this instance. I have posted what the bible actually says. So again that is not an interpretation that is called quoting.
Those words do not appear in your bible. Therefore, you were not quoting. You are putting stuff from your bible in your own words - therefore, interpretation.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Because what I said has nothing to do with interpertation. This again is an example of intelectual dishonesty. You have changed the meaning of a given word 'interpertation' to maintain a failed arguement.
Romans 3
21 But God has a way to make people right, and it has nothing to do with the law. He has now shown us that new way, which the law and the prophets told us about. 22 God makes people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. He does this for all who believe in Christ. Everyone is the same. 23 All have sinned and are not good enough to share God’s divine greatness. 24 They are made right with God by his grace. This (atonement) is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. 25-26 God gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins through their faith in him. God can forgive them because the blood sacrifice of Jesus pays for their sins. God gave Jesus to show that he always does what is right and fair. He was right in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And in our own time he still does what is right. God worked all this out in a way that allows him to judge people fairly and still make right any person who has faith in Jesus.
27 So do we have any reason to boast about ourselves? No reason at all. And why not? Because we are depending on the way of faith, not on what we have done in following the law. 28 I mean we are made right with God through faith, not through what we have done to follow the law. This is what we believe. 29 God is not only the God of the Jews. He is also the God of those who are not Jews. 30 There is only one God. He will make Jews right with him by their faith, and he will also make non-Jews right with him through their faith. 31 So do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? Not at all! In fact, faith causes us to be what the law actually wants.
This is what the bible says about attonement. no interpertation here just a straight up quote.
Finally - this is the first time you've quoted without interpreting. As you can see, your previous statement "Therefore one needs the same attonement offed by Christ, to attone not only for our sins but our misspent worship as well." occurs nowhere in there - thus making it an interpretation and not a quotation.
I interpret it differently. You interpret "all" from "all have sinned" to refer to whole of humanity. I interpret it to refer to just the sinners, i.e. those who don't follow the law. Which means, there are two ways to "get right" - either have faith or follow the law.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: wrong about what? To say one is not infallable does not make them wrong about everything. It simply states the obvious. that one can not be right about everything.
So if you believe that I am wrong about something then stop making basless accusations, nut up and commit to a statement by supporting it with examples of something.
In all these long drawn out posts you have FAILED to sucessfully do this once.
You should change your screen name to 'the accuser.'
Oh, I think you are wrong about your whole worldview - starting with your belief in god. But that is neither here nor there.
The pertinent point is this:
1. You are making claims about your god.
2. You are wrong about some things in your claims (your admission).
3. Therefore, some of your claims about god are wrong. (From 1 and 2)
Figuring out which parts are wrong is your mess and it isn't my problem to sort out. However until you do sort them out, don't make claims based on the assumption that all your assertions are right.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: So, let me see I can follow your messed up logic..
The atheist is repersenting the whole of christianity in his arguement while the Christian's statement that is in conflict does not?
Not representing - repeating.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: As a bible based Christian I can assure you little of what you believe about Christianity is bible based. Therefore the god you think is the God of the bible is indeed a construct of your own private understanding. This version of god MAYBE a bastardized version of the god of some fail version pop christianity. Something you picked up while attending sunday school, but is a long way from the God of the bible.
I don't have any "private" understanding of your Christian god. I simply take the version given by mainstream Christianity at its face value. In effect, what you are saying is that the mainstream Christianity is worshiping a bastardized version of your interpretation of biblical god.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Which again is why your faith/faith of those like you fail, and you all become angry atheist. (because your god is not based on anything of this world nor of the next.) And, simple logic tears this construct apart.
Again - never had any faith and not angry. And I'm not sure how well mainstream Christianity would react to your assertion that their god is "not based on anything of this world nor of the next"
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: The God of the bible however is not so easily pushed over.
Maybe when you get done chasing your tail here you can start a thread that put up some of the big faith ending paradoxes that put you out of business.
Clearly, he is even more easily pushed over - since most Christians pushed him aside for the bastardized version.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Again your assertion is everyone has the freedom to build a picture of God and God must honor it.......
Meaningless equivocation - the only ways of "seeking" that your god would honor should be regarded as the ways that are allowed. "Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks".
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Your point failed, because you took 1/2 a concept and rather make any attempt to fully understand it you disected what you thought could be made valid in a counter arguement and got caught. It's time to let all of this go.
The point is well-proven. Saying that you are allowed to write 2+2=5 but would be penalized for doing so is the same as saying you are not allowed to write 2+2=5.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Sorrry sport, I already beat you to it. That is why I defined validity for you as well. Wonk waa.
The definition of validations isn't your problem. The absence of anything matching it is. Wonk waa.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I can show you examples where God cause the ground to open up and swallow people because they were not worshiping Him correctly. I can show you verses where God has struck people down where they have not worshiped him correctly. i can show you verses where people are to be stonned if they fail to worship God in a certain way, I can show you where Israel was taken captive multiple times for not worshiping God correctly.... Where do you want to start? Let start with Judges 1 and 2 (The whole books) Because they are dedicated to the sin, punishment, repent, restoration cycle. This cycle repeats itself over and over and over. there are many examples of out right sin, failure to worship , failure to heed God examples all through the books.
Again, unless those passages literally say that "To worship God incorrectly is a sin", you are providing an interpretation.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: No, not if you can provide Book Chapter and verse that clearly outlines those stipulations. Again interpertation is putting something in your own words. NOT Using The Words That Have Been Written.
Sure - but I'm not the one claiming not to provide interpretation, you are. So I am free to provide the verse AND its interpretation.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Why not?
We have been intrusted with the bible. I and people like me repersent the God of the Bible. Therefore if we teach only from the bible then we can be trusted to share with you all that Man has been intrusted with.
And, according to you, part of what you teach is wrong and you don't know which part.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: What makes you think we have no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong?
You do.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Not according to your previous statement. You said you never had faith which makes you a liar. You are either lying now or you lied when you said you never had faith.
So which is it? you were a man of faith or is it you never had it?
Sorry, my mistake - I forgot that you think "honest attempt to determine truth" means "put your faith blinders on and believe in the bible".
I, on the other hand, say that an "honest attempt to determine truth" means "use rationals and critical without any faith".
Having done so, I have been there, done that, found your theology to be a pack of lies and all without being a man of faith.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: again if we are speaking in terms of the right direction concerning the God of the bible you have the bible to show you that I am indeed pointing you in the right direction.
And yet, others using the same bible are trying to point in another direction.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: "Eye've"known you were an exbeliever one or two posts in. (way too much anger to be a passer by.)
Again, not an ex-believer, nor angry. Just disgusted.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Your 'plank' refers to the statement you just admitted to a few paragraphs ago. "Been there tried that/christianity."
That's not a planck, that's a microscope.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: if you will remember my orginal statement that spawned this little back and fourth was: (But as mat 7 tells us not all who say they are Christians/followers are indeed followers.)
then you said "including you."
which lead us to my plank comment.
meaning: Everything you believe christianity to have been, may have been some empty religion that God has not supported for a very long time if ever.
Therefore you plank is that you never were a bible based christian and never knew or experienced the God of the bible, which cause your faith to fail.
In the parable Jesus taught 'to remove the plank in your eye before you concern yourself with the speck in your brother's eye' In your instance it means you should be willing to forensically dissect your failed faith examine it and then dilligently examine mine before you conclude that my beliefs are indeed based off of what failed you.
Just how stupid are you?
I don't hold any specific beliefs regarding Christianity - I accept what they say at face value. You go around saying your god is omni-benevolent, I'm fine with that. You go around saying he isn't. I'm fine with that as well. Mormons say they are Christians because they follow the bible - okay. You say they aren't - fine. I'll just sit by and point out the contradictions.
My belief regarding Christianity is simple:
1. You say you believe in bible.
2. You say you believe in Jesus.
3. You say you are a Christian.
That's good enough for me. I'm just examining it with a microscope and point out all the funny little inconsistencies. I'm dissecting your faith and theirs - not my own because I had none to begin with.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Examples? what denomination? what teaching? where did it orginate? how does it compare to what is written in the bible?
Or is this just another unsupported assertion based on your 'expert' opinion of christianty?
Omnibenevolence. Multiple denominations. Medieval theologians. And according to you, it contradicts the bible.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: God's standard is a standard based on righteousness. Righteousness does not change. However True righteousness is not obtainable for any of us through our own efforts. Therefore our method of obtaining righteousness did Change.
As established in another thread on morality about an year ago - when you say "righteousness", you are simply using a fancy word for god's morality. So, basically, what you are saying here is "god's standard of morality is based on god's morality. And since we cannot meet that standard of morality on our own, he created a loophole".
Which amounts to a change in his morality.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: No. Even obedience is not a constant in man's morality.
Irrelevant and pathetic deflection. My statement was "General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality". Your attempt at misdirection has been noted and ignored.
Getting back to the actual argument:
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.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: then cut and paste. You have already demonstrated a willingness for dishonesty in this conversation if and when it suits you. I can not take your statement at face value.
Ad-hom attacks don't work against demonstrable evidence.
(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: Indeed, subjective to the one who spoke creation into existance.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I fail to see a point, therefore I fail to see a reason to invest the time needed to sort out your daisy chain of failed logic here. If you have a point make it. If it is to say your right then I conceed.
The point being that your god's command of raping, killing and pillaging was not a misattribution and was consistent with his morality at the time. And yes, the point is to prove that I was right and I accept your concession.
(September 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Also I did not see any follow up on Euthie's 2 horn.. Am i to understand you have accepted what I have said there?
You are not - I provided the wiki link to the problems associated the second horn. The problems your theology gets skewered with.
(September 19, 2014 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: I can not believe you still do not see the connection between man's ever changing morality and you ablity to lable God anything based off this generation's standard.
Allow me to explain to you as if you were a 4th grade sunday schooler.
If your morality is ALWAYS the lessor of two evils then it is only a matter of time before your personal standards are floating in the toliet. So then the question is how can someone with floater/turd like standards judge anything that is not another floater turd as being sub standard?
Christ illustrated this alittle differently. He called people like you 'Self righteous.'
Meaning a person who derives righteousness from one's self. You can not deny that is exactly what it is you are doing. Do you want to go through all of the paradoxes that the NT identifies in the halfbaked world of the self righteous?
Oh, I've seen these arguments before. The only problem is, your god's morality is worse than shit decomposing at the bottom of a compost heap. And that is compared to the morality available to philosophers of that age. Since then, man's morality has been continuously evolving and getting better - so there is nothing disgusting enough for me to compare your god's morality to with respect to today's morality.
You see, the way you talk about personal standards ending up in toilet - that's where your god's standards already are. And I've no intention of letting mine sink that low.
The trick to avoid that is to make your own moral system as different from your god's as possible. Which requires identifying the salient features of your god's twisted morality - which would be authoritarian, toatalitarian, subjective, inconsistent and can be used to justify raping, killing and pillaging.
