General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

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:

Point of clarity: Every suspect or possibly wrong answer given is identified by me. The difference/how can I be sure? A wrong answers all start outside of what the bible says. If I speak outside of the bible then I will let you know before hand.

If GM says 2% of its cars are defective and won't say which 2%, then I'm not driving any of its cars.

I picked 2% because that is the lowest failure rate among ALL car manufacturers. Meaning at best you have a 2% failure rate in every mass produced vechical made avaiable to the public for purchase.

I guess you will be riding the bus from now on... until you see the bus factory recal sheets.

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.

I have said from the beginning which claims were wrong and why. what are you talking about? Did you simply assume I did not know nor have no way of knowing?

God is infinate, but the book He gave us that describes his known nature is not. To speak of the infinate God, without the boundries provided for in the bible, will definatly produce wrong answers. However speaking from only the bible, one has the oppertunity to have a 0% failure rate. Which is why from the beginning I have always made you all aware when and if I am speaking outside the bible.

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

Should I have to?

Only if you want to see it. For me to just dump scripture against everything I say is considered spamming or is against the no preaching rule. The mods have been generous and as a rule I do not want to push thier good nature. I only post unsolicited scripture when a point being made is completely dependant on a direct quote.

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.

Then if that is what you think I said allow me to correct your understanding of what I said.
The bible Identifies sin. Worshiping God incorrectly has been identified as sin in the bible.

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

Again I do not argue strawmen I simply will identify them so you can rephrase to include the information you are leaving out in your question.

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.

Ah, no.
In the R/C World, Christianity has been divided into two sects. The True Chruch (The Catholic Church/is the bible term) and protestants. to simply lable yourself a 'christian' is not enough. So the monicar 'Catholic' or even to suggest yet a further afirmation of one's saved status 'decoute catholic' has been adopted.

The term 'christian' means very little, in a 'devoute catholic' world.
Catholics are, first and foremost, Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Catholicism shares some beliefs with other Christian practices, but essential Catholic beliefs include the following:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ba...95805.html

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.

Then we are at an impass. All Christianity believes there are those who call themselves christian but are not saved as per Mat 7. (why else divide ourselves into denominations?) If a person adopts a denomination he has made up his mind that not all other brands of christianity are valid.

When speaking of Christianity you must allow for the rules contained with in that religion. If the rules say not are 'christians' are saved then you must make an allowance for that subset. If you can't do this in someway, but insist that all who call themselves Christian are even though the rules of the religion state otherwise you have commited an equivocation fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

As such the conversation ends are i will not activly participate in failed reasoning once it has been identified.

Sidenote. honestly look at the depths of intelectual dishonesty you have to maintain inorder to perserve your arguement if you are not willing to compromise here. What does it say about your core beliefs if they can not stand up to honest scrutiny?

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?

As apposed to denominational or traditional held beliefs. Again to hold to the idea that everyone who calls themselves christian is indeed a Christian, is an equivocation fallacy.

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.

Please demonstrate that your made up term actually applies to the topic at hand. I googled the term and only found where a literal convention of french to english translators were having their anual get together.

Again look at the depths of intelectual dishonest you are willing to undergo to maintain your position. You have to lie and make crap up to hold to your ideas. as if somehow your means justify the end. An honest person would look at the depths of his own lies and fallacious reasoning and realize that if it is nessary to maintain a given position, then said position has failed. However the proud man will do whatever it takes. even debase himself publically to maintain his pride. appealing to the idea that the people he is speaking to or infront of are idiots, and dont know anybetter.

You are there. you are making crap up to support failed and fallicious reasoning. Your not fooling anyone.

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.

Yes!!! Why? Because the acts themselves hold now moral value in ofthemselves. Again this is why man's morality and God morality are two seperate standards and why I have been calling God's standard 'Righteousness.' So people like you have the oppertunity to understand that man's morality (based on the idea that certain acts hold a level of right and wrong with in them.) And God's morality does not. In God's morality/Righteousness the acts are meaningless, it is what God tells you to do about said act and you obediance to what God says that defines one's morality/righteousness before God.

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.

You still don't get it. It is not the same measure of morality. Morality is a judgement of acts. (A given act is judged good or bad based on popculture.) What I have identified as Righteousness is not a judgement on a given act. In Righteousness the acts are netural they have no right or wrong value. What is absolute is that God's authority to say something is ok or not ok is always unchanging.

To lable both of these process as morality is foolishness. People like you who have a hard enough time keeping them seperate even when I have relabled God's righteousness will have no hope if and when we label them the same.

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

Not just the standards themselves, but how 'morality' is identified and defined.

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.

Ah, no. God's righteousness is an appeal to his authority to identify right and wrong in a given act. While morality the acts themselves hold an intrinsic value of right and wrong.
in·trin·sic
adjective \in-ˈtrin-zik, -ˈtrin(t)-sik\

: belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something

'God's morality' is not a standard or a guideline. It is a determination of right and wrong based on what He has willed for a given situation. Man's morality however is. In man's morality a given act is assigned a intrinsic moral value. A value that holds true so long as pop culture deems it having value.
Two completely different standards and ways to measure said standard..

Intuitivly one would assume God's values would change, yet they haven't, (As witnessed by Christ's death on the cross rather than change) and one would assume man's standard would not, but they have.

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.

I have and will conceed that in the english language the two mean the same. With the caveat that there are two very distinct forms of judgement of what is right and wrong in the bible and in soceity. These two values need to be seperated in order for people to understand the difference between the two and the reasoning for it. To try and lump them into one catagory even though you have been made aware of the two unique qualities is to say the least small minded. To call it accuratly I would identify your efforts here as more intelectual dishonesty. You see a desperate need to classify God's Righteousness as the same as man's morality so as to have the authority lent to you be God to deems 'immoral acts' as such. The problem is the bible that describes God's Righteousness does not agree with your need to lump God's righteousness in with your morality. God has top shelfed His righteousness beyond your reach, and you are desperatly trying to bring it down to your level inoder to give your judgement merrit. For this very reason Eupth's horns fail, and youre trying to save a sunken ship.

So, one more time: Morality refers to any standard of thought, action or behavior.

You are such a dishonest person it is sicking. I have posted the defination of morality. Or have you forgotten? If I have posted this defination why do you think I will be fooled by your made up defination?
mo·ral·i·ty
noun \mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\

: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something

Can't you see how you have to twist the truth to come to your conclusions? Does this not bother you?

Let's walk though this. If you have to lie to me and lie to yourself by twisting definations to answer an arguement I have left you then understand, your arguement has failed. Meaning once you lead with a corrupt principle or in this case a corrupt defination then everything that follows that is based on your failed defination is also corrupt. Meaning it is not valid, and does not warrant serious consideration.

Is this what they teach in high school? Is twisting the truth and saying anything now the standard method of debate? or are you just so proud that you think that everyone who reads your mess is to stupid to know anybetter?

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

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

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.

In order to evaluate anything there must be a guidline in place to evaluate by. otherwise your evaluation ceases to be an evaluation. It then becomes an observation. Because to evaluate is to judge or render a judgement. Inorder for one to judge one must have a standard to judge by. Euth's second horn is indeed a judgement. A Judgement that desperatly depends on morality/morals having a set value. It does not matter what those values are, there simply must be a set value in which morality it self can be determined. Euthy wrongly assumes that the acts themselves hold such a value. Maybe in his world 2500 years ago dealing with the greek gods he was speaking about they did. However in NT Christianity, they do not.

Again you like euthy's second horn has failed.

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

so your living in a third world country?