Sarah was half-sister of Abraham?

[Anomalocaris]

Yuuup. It is as simple as that.

Indeed, an brain dead inbred monkey can't make it simpler, but can probably make it more sophisticated.

[Foxaèr]

How can people believe in incest?

I have not read through the replies to see if it has already been mentioned. If so, it deserves to be reiterated.

It took incest for Adam, Eve, and their two sons to populate the earth. Especially, considering that there is no mention of God having created anyone other than Adam and Eve. "Be fruitful and multiply" God informed them as they left Eden, and the only way that was going to happen was through incest.

[DeistPaladin]

Sorry sport, but you lost that debate. We do what we like with other species just because we can.

In your opinion. You played the "ha ha, you don't know everything therefore Jesus" card.

As I explained to you in that debate, it's not up to me as the skeptic to know everything or answer every question.

[Tonus]

Because they do not understand the relationship with absolute righteousness and man's morality. The brothers who have difficulty trying to discern God's expressed will with any 'moral standard' credits that brand of morality for more than what it is worth. That is why God deals in absolute righteousness, as it sides with God each and every time. Absolute Righteousness makes the unchanging God the authority/standard and not whatever pop culture deems is right and wrong.

Their confusion is understandable, though, isn't it? They are expected to accept --and even defend-- some very disturbing deeds as being righteous because the one who committed or commissioned them is exempt from moral judgment. It also means that they cannot have full faith in god. If any of his actions are righteous, and he has shown a willingness to take action that men would deem immoral, what stops him from betraying his followers? To do so would not be wrong, as this is not possible for god. Arbitrarily damning a loyal follower would be the righteous course, by definition.

Again, no. For that is what this life is all about. The judgement of God. In that do you want to spend an eternity with Him or eternally seperated from Him?

Well, based on what I just wrote, I'm not sure I'd have that choice. What if I've led a fairly immoral life and wronged others, but god decides that I'll get into heaven anyway? His action would be righteous. What if I've led an exemplary life and served god faithfully, and he decides, oh I dunno... to let the devil wipe out my possessions, murder my children, afflict me with an awful sickness, cause my wife to advise suicide, and my trusted friends to rub my face in the dirt? And what if I remain loyal, expecting that a just and kind god would explain my plight, only to have him lecture me on how small and insignificant I am, a verbal lashing that forces me to apologize for my arrogance? His actions would be righteous.

I'm thinking that I might be better off eternally separated from him. There's some consistency in that.

[Anomalocaris]

You talk to drich as if he was animated by actual brain cells.

[Drich]

Their confusion is understandable, though, isn't it?

Only if one is trying to appease the general populace as well as uphold his own system of beliefs at the same time.

They are expected to accept --and even defend-- some very disturbing deeds as being righteous because the one who committed or commissioned them is exempt from moral judgment.

Who says or even where is it written that God is exempt from 'moral' judgement? As I have already said, That s what this life is about. Judging God. So that we may decide if we spend an eternity with Him or an eternity seperated from Him.

It also means that they cannot have full faith in god.

why?

If any of his actions are righteous, and he has shown a willingness to take action that men would deem immoral,

"Men" deem anything immoral that does not suit them. You're confusing His unchanging nature with the ever changing nature of man's 'morality.' Men even deem it one's moral obligation to betray your brother when it is considered to be for the greater 'good.' (civial war)

what stops him from betraying his followers?

What prompted Him to save them in the first place? The answer to your question and mine is Love.

To do so would not be wrong, as this is not possible for god. Arbitrarily damning a loyal follower would be the righteous course, by definition.

That is why it has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Well, based on what I just wrote, I'm not sure I'd have that choice. What if I've led a fairly immoral life and wronged others, but god decides that I'll get into heaven anyway?

Thankfully our 'righteousness' is measured apart from 'Man's morality.' Our righteousness is a gift from Christ so that no man can boast. For we all have fallen far short from the righteousness needed to enter Heaven.

His action would be righteous. What if I've led an exemplary life and served god faithfully, and he decides, oh I dunno... to let the devil wipe out my possessions, murder my children, afflict me with an awful sickness, cause my wife to advise suicide, and my trusted friends to rub my face in the dirt? And what if I remain loyal, expecting that a just and kind god would explain my plight, only to have him lecture me on how small and insignificant I am, a verbal lashing that forces me to apologize for my arrogance? His actions would be righteous.

Absolutly Yes!
why? Because everything Job had, was, or ever will be, literally belonged to God.

I'm thinking that I might be better off eternally separated from him. There's some consistency in that.

Which is the very choice and judgement you said you were not privy to. Imagine that.

---

Yuuup. It is as simple as that.

Indeed, an brain dead inbred monkey can't make it simpler, but can probably make it more sophisticated.

Just an observation chuckie, if I were so easy to push over with an intellect just a little greater than what a monkey possesed, then why haven't you yet? Why is the only weapon in your arsenal insults and empty dismissals? Why can't you seem to be able to actually dispel some of the topical talking point with fact and reason? Why does it seem all your able to do is heckle from the side lines? Our last few discussions haven't left you gun shy have they?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry sport, but you lost that debate. We do what we like with other species just because we can.

Classic is-ought (and a touch of tq). If somebody lost a debate about might and right it had nothing to do with what you just typed.

In other news, Drich still hasn't managed to bring his god out of despot territory I see. Good for him.

[Tonus]

Only if one is trying to appease the general populace as well as uphold his own system of beliefs at the same time.

Or if one is trying to appease a god who ostensibly provided him his system of beliefs, urges him to follow his example, then acts in a manner that betrays those beliefs.

Who says or even where is it written that God is exempt from 'moral' judgement? As I have already said, That s what this life is about. Judging God. So that we may decide if we spend an eternity with Him or an eternity seperated from Him.

You said "God deals in absolute righteousness, as it sides with God each and every time. Absolute Righteousness makes the unchanging God the authority/standard and not whatever pop culture deems is right and wrong." I understand this to mean that god is above the moral standards of man. Therefore, it follows that god is exempt from moral judgment. How can anyone judge a being who is above anyone else's sense of morality, and whose every action is righteous by definition? Did I misunderstand you?

"Men" deem anything immoral that does not suit them. You're confusing His unchanging nature with the ever changing nature of man's 'morality.' Men even deem it one's moral obligation to betray your brother when it is considered to be for the greater 'good.' (civial war)

You're...

What prompted Him to save them in the first place? The answer to your question and mine is Love.

...missing...

That is why it has nothing to do with right or wrong.

...the...

Thankfully our 'righteousness' is measured apart from 'Man's morality.' Our righteousness is a gift from Christ so that no man can boast. For we all have fallen far short from the righteousness needed to enter Heaven.

...point.

That doesn't answer the question. I'm not sure why you broke it up and responded to each piece separately, but none of that has to do with the point I was making. I'll try again:

If god acts in an arbitrary manner and can throw morality out of the window, then men have no guidelines for behavior. There are no role models, only a being who can do a righteous 180 without warning. His "love" is as meaningless as our "morality." God can promise men that he will reward them for their loyalty, then cruelly yank the rug out from under them because they didn't read the fine print. "Everything you have is mine, and therefore my promises don't mean squat!" he laughs. Job had no reason to serve god; god might well have given him riches and happiness anyway. After all, he took it all away even though Job gave no cause. "God felt like it" was the cause. Job's actions and loyalty did not factor into it, except to draw god's attention, and that went pretty disastrously for him.

Which is the very choice and judgement you said you were not privy to. Imagine that.

Errr... no. I'd certainly be better off separated from the god you are describing, but I wouldn't have that choice. If god decides that I'm to be eternally at his side, then I am, whether I want to or not. I'm always privy to god's judgment (more accurately, his whim), because it is whatever he decides it is. He is above right and wrong, the cosmic bully who sneers as he tells me he loves me, daring me to disagree. "That's a nice heavenly soul you've got there, fella. Pity if anything should happen to it."

[Anomalocaris]

Just an observation chuckie, if I were so easy to push over with an intellect just a little greater than what a monkey possesed, then why haven't you yet? .......

Drich, you don't have intellect a little greater than what a monkey possessed.

A monkey would have realized that such "argument" as "i am right because i said god said so" has, like slime in the gutter, nothing protruding above moral and intellectual filth to be pushed over.

But you appearently don't.

So don't insult the monkeys.

And don't try to get my boot heels dirty.

[Drich]

You said "God deals in absolute righteousness, as it sides with God each and every time. Absolute Righteousness makes the unchanging God the authority/standard and not whatever pop culture deems is right and wrong." I understand this to mean that god is above the moral standards of man. Therefore, it follows that god is exempt from moral judgment. How can anyone judge a being who is above anyone else's sense of morality, and whose every action is righteous by definition? Did I misunderstand you?

appearently. For judgement has nothing to do with being able to levy a sentence against God. Those who look to 'morally' judge God will do so by electing to be eternally seperated from Him.

That doesn't answer the question. I'm not sure why you broke it up and responded to each piece separately, but none of that has to do with the point I was making. I'll try again:

If god acts in an arbitrary manner and can throw morality out of the window, then men have no guidelines for behavior. There are no role models, only a being who can do a righteous 180 without warning. His "love" is as meaningless as our "morality." God can promise men that he will reward them for their loyalty, then cruelly yank the rug out from under them because they didn't read the fine print. "Everything you have is mine, and therefore my promises don't mean squat!" he laughs. Job had no reason to serve god; god might well have given him riches and happiness anyway. After all, he took it all away even though Job gave no cause. "God felt like it" was the cause. Job's actions and loyalty did not factor into it, except to draw god's attention, and that went pretty disastrously for him.

The reason the question was broken up was to break you line of reasoning. Look at what you wrote Here you whole arguement is based on a what if... What if God changes his mind... Rather than asking yourself Has God changed His mind? The answer (Even if you do not understand it) is No, never. The same things that applied still apply (This includes attonemnt) What attonement does is remove the burden of responsiablity from the sinner and places it on Christ. So again the same rules apply, it's just 'we' are not responsiable for our short commings or inablity to keep said rules.

Errr... no. I'd certainly be better off separated from the god you are describing, but I wouldn't have that choice. If god decides that I'm to be eternally at his side, then I am, whether I want to or not. I'm always privy to god's judgment (more accurately, his whim), because it is whatever he decides it is. He is above right and wrong, the cosmic bully who sneers as he tells me he loves me, daring me to disagree. "That's a nice heavenly soul you've got there, fella. Pity if anything should happen to it."

So you can admit thatGod is above your standards, yet you will try and shame him into letting you have things your own way but comparing Him to a mobster?

Not the best Judgement day defense strageity, but I guess if that is all you got, then what does it really matter?