General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

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.

Point of clarity: Has every suspect or possibly wrong statement made by you been identified? If so, I'd like a list.

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.

Nope - don't drive and don't take a bus. And the failure rate is relevant to purchasing without a warranty - not for renting.

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.

Gimme a list then.

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.

Okay, show me the scriptural quote that says god-claims have to be scripturally backed.

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.

That is what you are being asked to prove without "interpretation".

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.

There is no strawman - you the scripture says all sins are forgiven. I said the scripture also puts T&C on that forgiveness. You said you'd give evidence for your position and then you ignored that part of the argument.

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

Read your own statement. Your own link identifies Catholics as Christians.

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.

All Christianity believes that there are those who call themselves Christians but are not saved - that does not make them non-Christians.

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

Not if the rules don't identify them as non-Christians. Your rule say there is a subset that are not "saved" - fine, they are still Christians.

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?

They have stood up to honest scrutiny - it speaks more to the depth of your lack of comprehensive ability that you fail to identify an honest scrutiny when you see one.

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.

Except, I laid out the terms on which I identify Christians, of which there were three.

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.

Blah, blah, blah....

You think if you talk at length about your opponents intellectual dishonest, it somehow makes your accusations true - it doesn't.

Here is a fact - you repeatedly appeal to translation from Koine greek to support your arguments. Here, you denied using translation convention to support your arguments. That is actual dishonesty.

Yes!!!

And that makes your god's moral standards vile and disgusting.

Why? Because the acts themselves hold now moral value in ofthemselves.

And what were intentions while regarding those commands as right?

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.

They are different standards all right. Human morality is much better than your god's morality. However, calling your god's morality "righteousness" to justify its exemption from evaluation is special pleading. Further, if your god's standard is about obedience, then it makes your god's morality arbitrary and irrational.

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.

You have been corrected on this point as well. Many times.

Morality is a judgment of actions, decision and intentions. Therefore, your god's morality is a form of morality. A particularly vile and disgusting form of morality based on arbitrary and irrational commands - but a form of morality nonetheless.

The rest of it confirms my argument that it is irrational, absolutist and authoritarian.

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

The definition of morality doesn't change for your god's convenience.

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.

Wrong. Morality is any standard that differentiates between right and wrong in a given act, decision or intention. The rightness being intrinsic is not a requirement.

'God's morality' is not a standard or a guideline.

By your admission, it is "an appeal to his authority to identify right and wrong in a given act" - that makes it a standard and a guideline. A very bad standard, but a standard nonetheless.

It is a determination of right and wrong based on what He has willed for a given situation.

Thus making it subjective and arbitrary.

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.

Wrong on both counts. If it holds true depending on pop-culture, then it is not intrinsic by the given definition.

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.

If your god's standards haven't changed, then he is still okay with murder, rape and pillage.

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.

Even by the lax standards of fallacious reasoning, this is an extremely poor form of special pleading.

The two standards are different - which is why I refer to your god's standard as god's morality. But both are forms of morality - no matter how desperately you try to redefine morality. The whole point of your reclassifying your god's morality as something else is a futile attempt to exempt it from rational evaluation. Its special pleading and it doesn't work here. Which is why your god's morality is not beyond my reach, it is within my judgment, it does get skewered on Ethyphro's horns and that is why it sinks to the bottom of the shit-pile.

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?

The depths of your ignorance and stupidity are sickening. Did no one teach you how to properly research the subject under discussion? Is it your habit to simply pick the first definition you find on google?

Different sites define morality differently - from all of those definitions, I've chosen one that is the most comprehensive and most suited to allt he different applications of the word. That definition is found int eh first sentence here: Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). This definition is more comprehensive and subsumes the one you gave.

The rest of your cry-baby post is hereby ignored.

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.

The standards here are standards of rationality.

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.

Wrong on all counts - all that is required for Euthyphro's dilemma to apply is a system of morals being commanded by a god. Those morals need not have a set value. Nor do those morals need to provide judgement regarding actions only. Nor is there the assumption that the actions have any intrinsic value - otherwise the dilemma wouldn't exist at all.

Euthyphro's second horn is, therefore, very much applicable to your god's morality and that is why your god gets fucked in the ass by it.

so your living in a third world country?

Yes.