General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

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.

I'm not claiming that ALL of your statements are wrong, I'm saying that since you admit SOME of your statements are wrong and you have no way of saying which ones, ALL of your statements are untrustworthy. This statement is exemplified in this story:

A watermelon farmer was determined to scare off the local kids who went into his watermelon patch every night to eat their fill.

After some thought, he made a sign that read, "WARNING! ONE OF THESE WATERMELONS HAS BEEN INJECTED WITH CYANIDE!"

He smiled smugly as he watched the kids run off the next night without eating any of his melons.

A week later, the farmer was surveying his field. To his satisfaction, no watermelons were missing, but a sign next to his read, "NOW THERE ARE TWO!"

If GM says 2% of its cars are defective and won't say which 2%, then I'm not driving any of its cars. And if you admit some of your claims are wrong but won't say which ones or how or why, I'm not buying any of your claims.

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

Should I have to?

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.

What you are actually saying is "The Bible says worshiping god incorrectly is a sin". No "as I understand it". No "according to my interpretation". And you made this statement within the context of discussing how your god should be worshiped.

So, in order to establish that "The Bible says worshiping god incorrectly is a sin", you either have to find a quote that can be literally translated to that or you need to meet my conditions.

And you are still ignoring the next part of the argument.

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.

I'm simply bored of quoting your dishonest and stupid statements only for you to pretend that I haven't.

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.

If you won't say which part is wrong, then it makes the whole unreliable - which is my actual argument.

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.

Catholics disagree - they identify themselves as Christians.

To take a position you do not believe in and repersent it as it was your own, by defination makes you a hypocrite.

That is the exact opposite of the definition of a hypocrite. A hypocrite believes in a position he does not take. I'm temporarily assuming a position that I've been clear about not believing in.

Have I contradicted anything that I have said?

You have - when it comes to your god's morality. But this section is about contradictions among 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.

Since I don't believe your god exists, there would be no one left to refer by a capital 'C'. However, rules of capitalization dictate that I capitalize the first letter of a religious group - so I'll continue to regard all whom I consider Christians as "C"hristians.

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.

"Biblical" Christianity? As opposed to mainstream Christianity?

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?

Do you deny appealing to translation from of Koine Greek for "proper" exegesis? If no, then that is a translation convention.

I have conceeded on many occasions that righteousness is another word for morality.

Have you conceded? Because you made a post treating the two as different today.

What is being discussed in those threads is that God holds to another form of 'morality/righteousness' as man does.

And his moral standard is okay with raping, pillaging and killing.

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.

Even if your god's morality is described as absolute, it is still morality - no need to use a separate word for it. Just add "god's" in front of it - it'll still be shorter than righteousness and you won't constantly mispell it.

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.

There is no confusion - our moral standards are different from your god's.

To call both standards 'morality' is foolishness.

No, to call them both 'morality' is accurate because they are both moral standards - just different ones. We got the better deal.

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?

It does not mean the exact opposite. And I'm very aware of what it means. Both are standards and guidelines of behavior, thought and action.

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.

No, man's morality and god's morality.

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.

Wrong.

This standard is subject to change with popular culture.

Wrong.

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.

So, basically, you say that you concede that righteousness is another word for morality, but you'll continue to treat them as separate because it suits your preconceived theology to do so.

So, one more time: Morality refers to any standard of thought, action or behavior. Whether it changes over time is irrelevant. Whether it is authoritarian or democratic is irrelevant. There is no such thing as "Man's Morality" because humanity as a whole does not adhere to the same standard. There are different moralities from different sources. Any action or thought by any conscious agent is subject to judgment. Things in accordance are deemed moral and things contravening it are deemed immoral. And by the standards of secular morality, your god is extremely immoral. By the standards of rational morality, your god is worse than immoral. And since your hypothetical god's hypothetical actions dictate the actions of very real people, then those people are likewise immoral. Secular morality, however, is not subject to your god's morality because your god doesn't exist.

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.

If your god's morality has remained the same then raping and killing is still moral according to it.

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.

So, different standards for different groups - your god's morality becomes more and more despicable by the second.

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

"With" god? Who the fuck cares about that?

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.

Yup - the good old special pleading. Your god's commands are evidence of his moral character - he is not exempt from moral judgment. And the judgment is very, very bad.

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.

The standard used here is much more solid than your god's arbitrary whims - it is based on logic. The source of the rules has to be constant - the rules themselves should change according to facts.

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

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12271-po...#pid271447

Demonstrate this assertion.

Both moralities are authoritarian, irrational and sanction atrocities like raping and genocide.

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.

Wrong - the second horn of the dilemma is used to evaluate a moral system. It does not derive its validity from any morality. The "absoluteness" of man's morality - in fact, man's morality itself (if such a thing exists) is irrelevant to Euthyphro's reasoning.

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?

Because it wasn't the only active - or even predominant - event in play. Your god's dung-heap morality was still in full swing.

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.

Except - neither me nor my community counts as the top 10%.

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.

Good thing they are not.