General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

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

Examples are indeed required if your 'claiming' ALL my statements are wrong. Otherwise know your claim will be dismissed as a Non sequitur. If GM makes a million cars and 2% of them are defective, it does not mean all are defective. If you believe you have found a defective claim that I myself have not already flagged as being not biblically based, then you might have a case to argue. But, just to say because I am willing to admit i am not perfect, that everything I have said is flawed in some major way, is fallicious and weak minded reasoning.
Which is par for the course so far, and why I will just move to dismiss rather than argue further.

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

What makes you think that claim isn't? Have you asked for scripture?

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.

why?

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".

again why?

I have only made the statement that to worship God incorrectly is a sin. just one example establishes that it is indeed a sin to worship God incorrectly, you now have 5. The statement I made does not include the prerequsits you are trying to impose to save face.

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

If you are too lazy to support your words then maybe you shouldnot use them. I will only be responding to things you can establish after this post. You have proven yourself to be intelectually lazy and dishonest. You are also prone to moving the goal post, and a bulder of straw men when you think you can get away with it. That is why I am asking you to back your claims as I do if you wish to continue this conversation.

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.

Your statement fails because it is based in logical fallacy. (Non sequitur ) being wrong to a degree does not make one wrong as a whole.

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.

Again catholics identify themselves as catholic first. Catholics are the first to claim that they are catholic. None of them will claim to adhear only to scripture. Mainstream 'Christianity' are those who follow the teachings of Christ to the exclusion of all others. (This includes the pope) That is what makes them Christian. Catholics follow the pope to the exclusion of all others.

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.

To take a position you do not believe in and repersent it as it was your own, by defination makes you a hypocrite. There is nothing honorable nor smart about that. It creates mistrust and cause the people who youre speaking with to doubt you. This kind of thing is exactly why I am asking you to provide proof on any assertions you make. I am not just calling you names to be mean. These lables (Hypocrite, liar) accuratly describe your actions in this conversation.

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.

Have I contradicted anything that I have said?

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.

Then meet me in the middle here. use a small letter 'c' when describing a religious label anyone places on themselves concerning Christanity.

Use a Large 'C' when describing the content or context of those in whom God identifies as Christian.

I have no issue conceeding that there are those who claim Christianity and want to call themselves that. In Mat 7 Christ clearly states not everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ will he acknoweledge as a follower of Christ.

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

Not concerning biblical Christianity. Fore their isn't a basis in which to scripturally disagree. Which is the deciding factor on all matters concerning biblical doctrine.

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.

Indeed

You tried to do this by appealing to translation conventions,

Show me where I've done this. I know for a fact that I have never quoted a convention because I am not apart of a denomination that observes any. again another appeal to a lie to desperatly make a point.
when will you get that your strawmen will be knocked down and not answered?

but you were shown to be wrong and it was established in that thread that righteousness is just another word for morality.

Not in dispute sport. I have conceeded on many occasions that righteousness is another word for morality. What is being discussed in those threads is that God holds to another form of 'morality/righteousness' as man does. I use the term righeousness because God's 'morality' is attributed/described as absolute righteousness in several places. while what we describe as morality changes from culture to culture and generation to generation.

There is much confusion, and many arguements arise because people like you do not understand that what they understand to be moral God sees as dirty rags. Because God is not observing and judging the acts themselves, but the condition of our hearts in relation to His word.
To call both standards 'morality' is foolishness.

What word in our language can be used to mean one thing and the exact oppsite and not cause confusion? Especially when people like you are not even aware that it can mean anything other than what you think it currently means?

When compareing God's morality to ours their is an indisputiable difference outlined in Scripture. That difference once people have been made aware, needs to be classified as something other than what secular man has adopted as guideline for right and wrong. Hence Man's Morality and God's Righteousness.

Again the term morality was assigned to man because even secular man believes himself to be moral it is a term soceity has adopted to describe soceitaly correct behavior. This standard is subject to change with popular culture. Then we have God's Righteousness. I use the term Righteousness to describe God's morality because the bible attributes his morality as absolute unchanging righteousness.

One more time. Man's morality (MM) is a different standard apart from God's Righteousness (GR) because MM is ALWAYS a judgement of deeds. (Which is generally the lessor of two evils) GR has nothing to do with this standard. GR is a standard based on the condition of the heart in relation to deeds.
This means to judge God immoral is really pointless, as deeds hold no value in His economy.

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

There is no need for what if. The question is has it ever changed? God's righteousness remains the same. (Remember GR has nothing to do with deeds.) so your 'what if' goes out the window.

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.

I never said 'nobody.' I said 'we' as in Christianity. Sheep and goats, Wheat and weeds, wheat and chaff. there is always been a seperation in humanity.

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 -

Exactly In the Command of an act, not the act itself.
Therefore the act hold no 'moral' value with God.

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.

when it is ok, and not when it is not. So what? Again we both agree the acts hold no value, it is the command. Here is another example for the need to distinguish the difference between MM and GR. because you are trying to build an arguement using MM, when in GR it is a non issue because the acts commanded are netural by nature. it is the command that assigns them a 'moral' value.

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.

Consistancy has EVERYTHING to do with ANY Judgement. Because if the standard you are using is not solid then the judgement itself then becomes questionable. There is a reason Eupth's arguements has been pushed aside for other supposed paradoxial arguements.

Compared to rational morality.

Define and then support your defination of 'rational morality.' It is not a term I have used.

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

Demonstrate this assertion.

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

can't the second horn fails to explain anything unless you suppose man's morality is an absolute standard. I have shown many times that it is not.

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.

My example have shape the landscape and defined the boarders of the current nations of the world. Meaning they are the direct result of the soceities in which hypocritically deemed an 'age of enlightment.' Because how can one claim enlightenment in the same time span that their soceity was committing these very acts?

Your evolution of morality is a fantasy cooked up to cover the perfered behavior of man. It so people like you can sleep at night given all the horrid things that happen to all the other people in the world so you and your community can be counted as the top 10% who have ever lived.

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

If your morals are not anchored in a standard of morality drived from a source other than what soceity tells you is right and wrong, then your morals are indeed tied to popular culture.