General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

What makes you believe a non requirement exists here?

Your reply to my question regarding what are the limitations to being a Christian.

Omni benevolence is offered to the followers of Christ, it is the application of Omni benevolence to all of humanity that is wrong. Papal authority is not different than what David koresh has done.

So in the first instance forgiveness can be found because of a simple error, while the other who worship outside of the bible, will be upto God to judge.

Thus proving my point - accepting extra-biblical teachings does not stop you from being a Christian.

Fallacies of Logical Structure: Equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word switches meaning in the middle of an argument - when it expresses one concept in one premise and another concept in another premise or in the conclusion.
-Google

The meaning here did not change. You simply became aware of the full intended meaning.

The meaning of the word "allowed" in your statement "you are allowed to understand god however you want" was changed.

That would not be consistent with the parable of the wise and foolish builder. Again I am not making this stuff up as i go. Christ himself has been recorded in giving this parable that allows for two types of houses being built. One to code and one the way we want. Again God allowed both houses to be built therefore God allows us to seek Him any way we want.

Validation does not come in the building of the house but through the storms that follow.

However, the fact does not change that both of them are building a house - meaning, even if Mormons interpret Christianity differently, they'd still be Christians.

This is an extremely near sighted statement. Again what I have said reconciles the teachings of Christ in one's approach to God. This is not my philosophy, these stories are how God communicated to us what to expect. How we are to be tested and judged.

The same way a teacher communicates which answers are expected and how the students would be tested and judged - so my statement that ""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"." - describes your philosophy pretty accurately.

That's not what you said in your last post. In reference to Christianity you said 'Been there done that.' then proceeded to make your point.

I don't have to be a Christian to evaluate Christianity.

Not true. as you have yet to establish the term 'main stream christianity.'

Fr0d0 did that.

Catholics up hold the teachings of the pope over Christ. That was why there was a split from Catholicism 500 some odd years ago.

So, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christians?

And i provided links to official websites where the book of doctrine and covenants took precedent. thus invalidating your wiki claim, and if you keep reading I will post a quote from the founder of that religion that further refutes your claim.

And why would those taking precedence stop them from being Christians?

this is another unsupported assertion.

Unsupported means it is your understanding without any evidence supporting what you have said here.

You say my arguments say they support you. I said nut-uh. Since they by your own words identify this as my argument, my nut-uh ends the discussion unless you can provide a quote to the contrary. this is what makes your assertion is unsupported.

Except my understanding is based on the evidence you provided - not your so-say. When I say "your arguments support my claim" I mean the evidence provided within your arguments.

Specifically, you've given evidence through biblical quote that your god is not omni-benevolent - I accept that evidence. Meaning, that particular claim is extra-biblical. But it is also a claim that most Christians believe - therefore, extra-biblical claims are accepted within Christianity.

Then maybe you are misidentifying 'main stream Christianity.'

Then correct that identification.

Other than treating those alternate sources as divine as well. Is that the condition?

Yes

Finally a straight answer - so, what's the basis for this condition?

What have I taught that comes from another source? you made a claim now provide proof.

"You" here refers to Christians in general, you moron. And you are the one who proved that by proving that bible is not the source of "omni-benevolence".

Again no. I defined Doctrine. Incase you forgot Doctrine is : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
-Merriam Webster.
There is not one valid principle in the bible that the Mormons hold to if it is not also found in one of their other religious books.

Which makes any share principles just that share principles. Again the bible's only use is that of a recruitment tool for the Mormon church. other wise it is dismissed as being corrupt by the jews.

Whether or not they are shared is irrelevant - if the biblical principles are held, then bible is a doctrine for them.

untrue. Joseph Smith Started Mormonism because he thought the bible was far too corrupt to follow.

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327)

Do you see how a supported assertion works? I have taken your claim made one to the contary, and paired it with evidence to the contrary thus invalidating your claim.

Now we have something more than my word to go on. We have what the orginator of this religion said about the bible, and not just your personal beliefs. As the founder of this religion trumps the beliefs of everyone in it or speaking of it, it is his words that define true mormonism. Again he said the bible as orginally written was valid.. The current bibles we have are not orginals, therefore invalid as they are all subject to the pens of "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests." therefore invalid. That is why He penned the new book of covenants and doctrine. He took what he wanted and discarded the rest. Much like many people think we are to do with the OT nowadays.

Sounds like a true-blue Christian to me - say that you believe in the bible as it was originally written. Admit that it was corrupted by humans over time. Then go on to pick and choose the parts that suit you.

then it should be very easy to site an example.

No you didn't.

Yes I did - the thread itself is an example.

You didn't read 'ALL' of Romans 3 did you? If you did you would have not had a need "interpret" who the word 'all' refers to. Verses 9-20 tell us who 'all' is exactly.

9 So are we Jews better than other people? ......
So you see old sport, 'all' Means ALL. That is why when 21-31 refers to all we know ALL does not mean some. Because as verse 20 says None can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows our sin.
This includes the laws that govern not only the moral code buy religious acts. We know this because the original Greek word that is translated into the word 'law' in English is νόμος or transliterated nomos. It means:
I.anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command
of any law whatsoever
A. a law or rule producing a state approved of God
B. by the observance of which is approved of God

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3551&t=KJV

I see, so the "all" here refers to all the sinners and not the whole world.

Because, you see, in 15, 16 and 17, your bible makes specific claims which are demonstrably untrue regarding the whole world.

Such as? quote the claims i have made.

Every statement about god you make is a claim about god.

Examples where i said i was wrong about God.

You state that some of your statements about god are wrong - speciic examples are not necessary.

Before you can conclude first you must establish the claim.

Done.

They are if your going to make this assertion.

Nope - still your problem, sport.

I clearly state which claims are scripturally back and which are not. There is nothing here I've said to you in this thread that is not scripturally backed.

You mean other than your statement that god-claims should be scripturally backed.

Your "Interpretation" of 'Mainstream Christianity' is indeed your own personal brand/private version of Christianity.

Nope, its Fr0d0's.

They typically quote a prophet, spiritual leader, some tradition or counsul or 'new doctrine' (not found in the bible) that supports what they believe.

So?

The first 5 commandments are commandment concerning the worship of God. to break any commandments is a sin.

How is that?

Or do you need me to establish breaking a commandment is a sin? or do you need me to establish that the first 5 commandments are all laws concerning the worship of God?

Poor showing indeed. You need to establish that the first 5 commandments are the only correct way to worship and thus any deviation constitutes breaking them. Then you need to establish that having extra-biblical sources contravenes those commandments. And you need to do this by only referring to biblical quotes and without any interpretation.

Then and only then you can claim that the bible says "worshiping god incorrectly (incorrectly here meaning anything deviating from your standards) is a sin".

I also see you've ignored the next part of this argument.

Where did I say this You need to quote my words otherwise your efforts to say otherwise will be dismissed.

Search of your own posts - I'm getting tired of shovelling through your crap to tell you what shit you said.

Again provide a quote. Something tangible. Something I have actually said, not the personal strawmen you have constructed based on my words..
This is intellectual dishonesty. Otherwise Show me some proof.

Do you deny making this statement about understanding god - "No, they are ALL Wrong to one degree or another."? If no, then my statements stands. And if you do, then you are a liar.

like who? Who are these others you keep referencing? Maintream Christianity? What denomination is the mainstream? So me doctrine that points you in the other direction based on the bible.

Catholics - according to you.

I would be too if my reasoning forced me to believe what you do.

Glad we agree that proper reasoning forces a person to regard Christianity as disgusting.

This is a lie. Your exegesis of Romans 3 you did earlier disproves this statement. You did not take what Christianity says about Romans 3 nor did you follow what the context of the passage said at face value. You reinterpreted the passage to suit your argument. This makes you 'stupid' or a hypocrite and a liar. So which is it sport?

To take a position that I don't believe in to prove a point - that makes me a smart debater.

You haven't pointed out a contradiction yet, because you have failed to establish one single instance. You "interpret" what I say and then fabricate a condition to force a contradiction. Again, youre either stupid (your term) or a liar.

You say your god is not omni-benevolent. The other Christians say he is. That is a contradiction.

You've missed a step between 2 and 3. This is exactly what i mean. in your sumation, you leave out information or even fabericate it to make a point. That is why you need to quote any position that is not your own.

What step? I'm quoting my position here - if someone says those things, I accept them as Christians.

your a one horse pony show huh?

Ok, I can work with this. Is my claim supported or unsupported by the bible?

Sure. Those who believe in omnibenevolence disagree with you, though.

You've shown yourself to be a confirmed liar/hypocrite or just plain stupid. (Again your word not mine) I can't take you word here you need to provide a link to what your quoting.

Says the stupid liar. I'll accentuate the next part to highlight its importance.


This isn't the first time you tried to sing this song - you are constantly trying to differentiate between righteousness and morality by claiming that your god has righteousness and man has morality. You tried to do this by appealing to translation conventions, but you were shown to be wrong and it was established in that thread that righteousness is just another word for morality. You continued to push this idea and I told you that I'd be there to prove you wrong everytime you do. And now, you are trying to pretend it never happened by using ad-hom attacks. Go look at your own threads.

And I have conclusively shown that it is not. I have sited historical examples where obedience was deemed immoral. Therefore obedience is not a constant.

In those cases it is an aspect of man's immorality.
Still irrelevant to the point.

according to who?

Logic.

God's Morality is whatever He says it is.

And if what he says changes from time to time, then it isn't constant.

That is why I have said repeatedly that our acts in of themselves hold no intrinsic value. It is why we/Christians do what we do that God looks at not the what. NonChristians are judged by the what you do.

I thought nobody was judged on what they do.

Just because I 'attacked you' does not make it '
Ad-hom. The fact that I cited an example shows my attack was founded in fact and not of emotion.

No, you didn't and using the attack as a counter-argument makes it an ad-hom

My issue is with your use of the term morality. Morality has nothing to do with raping and killing, because again these acts in of themselves hold no moral value. The term your looking for is "God willed/God's will" (for raping and killing.) Again, 'morality' is found in our obedience to God's will, and not in of a given act.

Your god's will is found in the command of the act - therefore, your god's morality is found in his commands. And if your god commands people to rape and kill then your god's morality is one where raping and killing is okay.

Nothing the second horn provides skewers anything. As explained the second horn is only valid if one holds to the idea that a given set of rules is a constant.
Again, the 'rules' in of themselves hold no value to God against one of His followers.

Constancy has nothing to do with validity of the second horn. The second horn shows why your god's morality is vacuous, circular and arbitrary. That is the skewering.

Again compared to what? What pop culture currently deems as acceptable?

Compared to rational morality.

The problem with trying to levy a judgment like you are making is, that you do not have anything solid to stand on. Because nothing God has done/command is any different than what man himself has done.

The morality by which those men committing atrocities acted belongs to the same dung-heap as your god's morality.

The only difference is having the authority to authorize such an act and deem it righteous.

Morality doesn't derive any validity from argument from authority - go check the second horn.

So your saying almost 4000 years after the event described man's 'morality' was better? That's funny, because the active genocide of the plains Indians and African slavery was in full swing.. So when did this 'evolution' occur? 100 years after that during Nazi Germany's rise to power? What about 50 years after that? When we were in the middle of the cold war and bothsides 'morally justified' the complete destruction of the planet several times over? How about we fast forward 20 more years to the coalition of western nations that invaded Iraq and stole it's resources, and stripped those people of their national identity.. Lets do another 10 where Russia and china are gathering power and grabbing land, and rediverting resources to their homelands leaving the indigenous to starve??? Or did you simply mean your particular community who voted yes on gay marriage are the ones who are evolving?

Actually, it started with the age of enlightenment and has been spreadign slowly ever since. The examples you gave are application of dung-heap morality akin to your god's - and in many cases, of your god's.

Can't you see that is the very definition of popular morality i was speaking of? How then can one take a superficial trivial element of pop culture and pretend it is a standard of measure for anything?

I don't subscribe to "popular" morality. It just so happens that some of my tenets are popular.