Man's morality

[downbeatplumb]

I had this discussion already but dont remember with who. In short i changed my anaology to reflect the relationship between a parent and child. The parent may have rules for the child that may not apply to them. For instance Jr. is not allow to touch the stove, cross the street or stick anything into a light socket. But if the parent had to abid by these same rules everyone would starve in the dark. So in your world is the parent really bound by the same rules the child is?

A parent killing all but 1 of his children cos they are doing their own thing is not a good parent.

And how does having his son/him nailed to a piece of wood help anything?

[Drich]

I had this discussion already but dont remember with who. In short i changed my anaology to reflect the relationship between a parent and child. The parent may have rules for the child that may not apply to them. For instance Jr. is not allow to touch the stove, cross the street or stick anything into a light socket. But if the parent had to abid by these same rules everyone would starve in the dark. So in your world is the parent really bound by the same rules the child is?

A parent killing all but 1 of his children cos they are doing their own thing is not a good parent.

And how does having his son/him nailed to a piece of wood help anything?

who/what are you talking about?

[ThomM]

[/quote]
I do not care what a person's health care covers, so long as I am not asked to pay for it. The moment I am asked to pay for something I should have some say on how the money is spent.

Actually - if YOU are living in the USA - you are already paying for everyone's health care - whether you like it or not.

A hospital cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate medical care - so caring for those who cannot pay - is part of their cost of doing business - for both their institution and the doctors working there. So when they determine how much to charge - their charge to those who do pay has to cover the cost of treating those who do no- or they will go out of business. So - you are paying for those without insurance through higher costs when you buy your insurance - and higher costs when you actually need care.

The same is true for all businesses in the USA - since they include as part of their costs - the cost of loss due to non-payment of some (Or theft as well). Either they cover all of their costs and make a profit and survive - or they will go out of business.

And that is simply how our system of economics works.

In fact - if all people did have equal access (Something that exists nowhere - since even in countries where there is national health coverage - people with money can still choose to pay for something more) - even then you would still be paying based on ALL of the various diseases and maladies - presuming you would not have all of them.

However - the more that have insurance - the less it will cost because there will be less losses and non payment to cover - over a larger insured group.

---

Doing something to stop the killing now, puts you in a position to condemn the acts that happened 4000 years ago. Ignoring what happens now makes you a foolish hypocrite when you pretend to care what happened durning a flood you do not even believe happened.

I could just refuse your ridiculous framing of a bunch of cells as life, and avoid your false dichotomy entirely. Oh look! I'm already doing that!
[/quote]

Actually - even though I am not a theist - a bunch of cells can be life - it is just not a Human. In fact - a single cell can be life - but certainly cannot be classified as a person.

In fact - even in the case of humans - there are stages that the developing life goes through before it becomes a human. It is akin to saying a silkworm is a butterfly - or a tadpole is a frog. If that were true - there would not be a need for the extra terms. It is not true. And it is the same for Zygotes - they are not humans. And worse - statistics show that the overwhelming majority of the Zygotes do not survive. In fact - none of the zygotes that fail to implant survive - nor can they - under natural circumstances.

The problem is - when looking at humans - somehow theists prefer to claim that a zygote already has a "soul" and is therefore a separate individual life.

In fact - if you look a human reproduction - and the amount of survival at
the various stages - survival before birth is actually - statistically rare - compared to the number that do not survive - and yet I see no effort from the theists to honor those that do not survive it naturally. So - the majority of "souls" of all time would be dead before having a chance - something that then questions the god's "perfection".

Do stillborn babies - who died before a "baptism" could happen - go to hell because they still had original sin? Why do they NOT baptize all fetuses that do not reach maturity?

And if you attempt to define a zygote as a human - and it does not survive - would you then require the local police to investigate to make sure the mother did not do something that might have mitigated the loss as well? This would tie up law enforcement completely. And would you put a woman in jail for - say - scrubbing a floor - because that would contribute to the loss of a zygote?

[genkaus]

So righteousness does tell you about right and wrong, but is technically not morality,

Yes

No. Telling you about right and wrong is what technically makes it a morality.

It depends on what the bible says about genocide. If we were OT Jews Yes, but Being NT Christians No. What we 'do' must still fit with in the confines of what God wants.
If God say do not murder and you kill in His name your still in sin.

An example of your god's morality changing - something you've expressly denied.

They are Good according to what God wants for us.
They do not always fit the modern defination of the word 'good/moral.'

Glad we agree that your god's rules are neither good nor moral.

So more might makes right?

Absolutly

God can force his standard on us, so that makes it legitimate?

Yes!

Except that he can't really force it on us. Or at least doesn't (if he exists).

This life is not about 'forcing us' to do anything. In this life we are free to express what it is that is in our hearts. Accountablity comes after this life is over.

Except, by your own admission, he sis all about forcing his standard upon us - when he chooses to do so is irrelevant.

Absolutly, fore if a person truly wishes to serve and worship God then it is by His standards we must yield our actions.

But, according to you, we must do this even if we dont wish any such thing.

What was America's/western europe Terrorist policy Pre-9/11?
What is it now?

Before 9/11 we activly sought to ajudicate terrorists, now we shoot them and activly hunt them down chasing them from their homes. we justified a 13 year war to do this... Not saying this was wrong or right, just showing you a fundamental change in 'morality' given circumstance and the 'right' propaganda. What is scarry is you did not even notice the huge paradyme shift in our collective morality. We went from everyone gets a day in court to villifing and dehumanizing a given people, and spending trillions of dollars to hunt them down and kill them with out a trial. "All are guilty by assoceation"

Again not making a right or wrong judgement, just pointing out a shift in 'morality' that was justified by an event and made right by propaganda (not always a negitive word. It describes a movement or idea that pushes or supports political ideals or support of a leader.) Not all propaganda is false, this may have very well been the case here. even so it is still propaganda, and you followed it blindly.

But I am making a judgment - and the judgment is that the shift in morality is wrong. It has been made through propaganda and not rational discourse and the given justification is invalid. And don't accuse me of "following the propaganda blindly" without even knowing my political position on the matter - you are the only one who comes out looking like an idiot.

The shift in moral consideration given to suspected terrorists is the perfect example of fear perpetrated by propaganda is an irrational method of changing the society's moral outlook. Its a step backwards in our moral growth.

Wrong - you ignorant buffoon.

Go look up the definition of a fact in the dictionary.

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

I asked you to look up 'fact', not 'propaganda'. However, notice the use of the word 'or' - indicating that propaganda doesn't always use facts and also notice the absence of any support for your argument that propaganda can change facts.

uh, no.
ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.
It does not say these 'facts' are always false. In all four definations the core undersanding of the word always centers around a goverment or political leader supplying information to control/support a given movement or thought process.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

Uh, yes.
The definition says that ideas are false or exaggerated - a part that you conveniently ignore and the part that I address through the word 'misrepresent'.

My statement stands - facts cannot be changed through propaganda.

Why did you quote "Statement of belief"? I did not say a fact was a statement of belief.

Yes, you did.

a fact is a statement of belief that can be proven or disproved.

If you are going to lie, do a better job.

I said a fact is a statement that can either be prooved or disprooved.
Pluto was a planet in 1989, Now pluto is not a planet anymore. In 1989 when we taught pluto was the last planet in our solar system did it mean we were not teaching facts, rather statements of belief? or did we teach facts, and the prooving process of planetary status change, declassifying pluto from planetary status??

'Planet' is a classification - not an inherent property. I dentification of Pluto as a planet was incorrect before 1989. That we were not aware of the actual fact and mistakenly taught wrong something incorrect only to correct ourselves later is not evidence that "facts change", much less that they could be done by propaganda.

Is pluto a planet? was this always the case?

No. Yes. And what does this have to do with propaganda?

That is where you are wrong. Morality is about what 'should be done.' Righteousness according to God says there is nothing you can do to acheave this standard.

Except, your god's righteousness also instructs in what 'should be done'. That he goes on to add that "you can't do it" is irrelevant.

Again no. If you would actually take time to read what I have been writting for 16 pages or even just read what I have been writting to you, you would know that 'Righteousness' has nothing to do with a standard of behavior.

If it had nothing to do with standard of behavior then humans cannot fall short of it. If humans cannot fall short of it, then there is nothing to make up for through salvation - which means your argument is dead in water.

That you keep repeating, over and over again, that humans do fall short of achieving it means you accept that it is a standard of behavior - albeit, an impossible one.

That is why there is a need to seperate morality from God's righteousness.

Which is why there is no such need.

[Drich]

No he doesn't. PEOPLE create a delusion they feel comfortable in. I was a devout Christian for the first 2/3rds of my life. It is why I have a wealth of knowledge of the bible.

I've also been a Christian 2/3's of my life and have spent the last 6 to 8 years studying the bible and answering questions 4 to 8 hours just about everyday, and I still haven't accumulated a 'wealth of knoweledge' yet.. Maybe that is why I am still in the faith and you are not. Because at no point have I ever believed that I have it all figured out..

It is also the reason I came out the other side of my biblical studies an Atheist. I A/S/Ked a few too many questions and found it all to be just a lie with little substance.

How does one Ask, Seek and Knock too many questions?
I have A/S/Ked every question I had, and got an answer. These answers made me re-examine my understanding of God and religion, and I had to change what i initially thought about God and religion, After i did there was nothing i could ask that God did not provide an answer for. So i sought your questions to A/S/K. To date there hasn't been a biblically based question i haven't been able to get an answer to. now that does not mean you all like my answers or except them, but nothing has gone unanswered as of yet.

And please spare me the No True Scotsman garbage.

I honestly do not believe you guys truly understand this fallacy.
No true scotsman is only a fallacy when there aren't conditions placed on being a 'true scotsman' other than someone's opinion. There are factual biblically based conditions on Christianity therefore no true scotsman does not apply.

Nice dodge. So I'm gonna go ahead and assume you have no evidence other than your preferred delusion.

If the evidence of God is contact with God, then what 'evidence' can i possiably possess myself? I can only arrange a meeting or rather tell you what you have to do to arrange your own meeting.

I had it too...

Probably not. You had sincerity and support from people with the same feelings.

then realized it's just smoke and mirrors force fed to me by my family and peers.

As i just said.

It's the same reason most Christian children believe in Santa. Because it's jammed down their throats from birth and everyone around them tells them it's true.

The Proof God offers has nothing to do with your peers or parents. If your total experience hinges on what your peers and family said/did then you never A/S/K as outlined in luke 11. Therefore you never 'had it.'

That's exactly how I can tell you what it ISN'T... it ISN'T reality. It's fiction.

Because you did do what God asked of you and found nothing?
I'm sure for you this all somehow makes sense. I do not share your belief.

And would only be a reflection of the writer's ideas on morality or righteousness. That is the limit of its scope and meaning. So if we are to take the bible... it's bronze age fiction and is only relevant to the culture that created it. For us in the year 2013 in America... it's meaningless for any purpose other than to study and bygone and archaic culture.

Your right as a form of morality God's righteousness is not applicable to mordern values, which is why i have made an attempt to seperate the two. Because the modern understanding is based on works/deeds. and what God has established is not.

In fact Thor and the Hulk would be a more meaningful text on morality and righteousness as they are more closely linked with our own culture. The creators of these fictions are products of our culture.

You've seem to miss the point. Hulk and thor was use to establish a context, you speaking to content of hulk and thor.

Of course it is. God is a creation of man. His "righteousness" is a direct reflection of the ideas of his creators.

Actually it doesn't.
Man's morlity as I have said 6 dozen times already is based on works deeds and God's is not. There are two completely different ways of determining value here, you keep trying to combine them into one.

again God does not look at works to judge good or bad
Man does.

If God is a creation of man then why did we give God a value system that is completely forgein to us? You still don't seem to get it even given your mastery of the bible.

Because our moral standards are based on the idea that acts themselves have a right and wrong value.

No they don't. Our acts are neutral.

Show me a culture that shows an indifference to murder (not killing but murder.)

Our culture judges whether they are good or bad.

If I kill than man that hurt my little girl... most would think me morally just. If I kill the same man for no reason at all... I'm a murderer.

Then you mean to say that everytime a killer is identified as a murderer then He is always deemed morally wrong and owes a debt to soceity?

The ACT was the same. The reason is moral or not. And God, Thor, or Hulks fictional stance on the issue has nothing to do with reality other than what their creators think about the subject.

Unless you are to be judged by Him, on the bases of His standard.

God's righteousness is based in fiction and only reflects the views of his creators.

Can you support your claim?

[

---

[quote='Drich' pid='559168' dateline='1386607310']It depends on what the bible says about genocide. If we were OT Jews Yes, but Being NT Christians No. What we 'do' must still fit with in the confines of what God wants.
If God say do not murder and you kill in His name your still in sin.

An example of your god's morality changing - something you've expressly denied.

God's standards have not changed. Jesus Died because they did not/will not ever change. However because of His death we/Christians are no longer held to those standards that those who have not accepted Christ are still being held to. Everyone else, that's a different matter.

Glad we agree that your god's rules are neither good nor moral.

So do you now see a need to seperate the mordern defination of 'good and morality' from that of God's?

Absolutly

Yes!

This life is not about 'forcing us' to do anything. In this life we are free to express what it is that is in our hearts. Accountablity comes after this life is over.

Except, by your own admission, he sis all about forcing his standard upon us - when he chooses to do so is irrelevant.

So long as you're aware.

But, according to you, we must do this even if we dont wish any such thing.

no, You only 'must do this' if you want to be apart of His creation. Those who wish to seperate themselves from Him are free to do so.

But I am making a judgment - and the judgment is that the shift in morality is wrong. It has been made through propaganda and not rational discourse and the given justification is invalid. And don't accuse me of "following the propaganda blindly" without even knowing my political position on the matter - you are the only one who comes out looking like an idiot.

Are you still apart of the culture? are you still connected to the 'grid?' do you still benfit from soceity and the results of the actions taken in the middle east? If yes to any of these questions, then the observation can be made that you do not seem too overly convicted to your 'political views' when they go against your 'morality.' Your just a objector in name only. As such my points still stand.

The shift in moral consideration given to suspected terrorists is the perfect example of fear perpetrated by propaganda is an irrational method of changing the society's moral outlook. Its a step backwards in our moral growth.

Indeed. but so is every step we take that takes us further from God.

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

I asked you to look up 'fact', not 'propaganda'. However, notice the use of the word 'or' - indicating that propaganda doesn't always use facts and also notice the absence of any support for your argument that propaganda can change facts.

Do you want example of Nazi propaganda that changed the Historial facts concerning the 'aryan' race?

Why did you quote "Statement of belief"? I did not say a fact was a statement of belief.

Yes, you did.

a fact is a statement of belief that can be proven or disproved.

If you are going to lie, do a better job.

my mistake Statement OR Belief, not statement of belief.

['Planet' is a classification - not an inherent property. I dentification of Pluto as a planet was incorrect before 1989.

Yet the identification of pluto's planetary status was herolded as Fact.

That we were not aware of the actual fact and mistakenly taught wrong something incorrect only to correct ourselves later is not evidence that "facts change",

Actually it does. You may not like that fact, but pluto was considered a planet since it's discovery. It wasn't till a few years ago did that fact change. The is a clear cut example of a fact being altered to reflect a different understanding of a given belief.

much less that they could be done by propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Text_books
The facts in these text books were change to reflect Nazi propaganda. Nazi Children were also taught 'facts' did not change as well. wonder why?

Except, your god's righteousness also instructs in what 'should be done'. That he goes on to add that "you can't do it" is irrelevant.

How so?

---

can't get the above post to show up

[Tonus]

can't get the above post to show up

There is an open quote tag near the beginning of the post.

[Drich]

No he doesn't. PEOPLE create a delusion they feel comfortable in. I was a devout Christian for the first 2/3rds of my life. It is why I have a wealth of knowledge of the bible.

I've also been a Christian 2/3's of my life and have spent the last 6 to 8 years studying the bible and answering questions 4 to 8 hours just about everyday, and I still haven't accumulated a 'wealth of knoweledge' yet.. Maybe that is why I am still in the faith and you are not. Because at no point have I ever believed that I have it all figured out..

It is also the reason I came out the other side of my biblical studies an Atheist. I A/S/Ked a few too many questions and found it all to be just a lie with little substance.

How does one Ask, Seek and Knock too many questions?
I have A/S/Ked every question I had, and got an answer. These answers made me re-examine my understanding of God and religion, and I had to change what i initially thought about God and religion, After i did there was nothing i could ask that God did not provide an answer for. So i sought your questions to A/S/K. To date there hasn't been a biblically based question i haven't been able to get an answer to. now that does not mean you all like my answers or except them, but nothing has gone unanswered as of yet.

And please spare me the No True Scotsman garbage.

I honestly do not believe you guys truly understand this fallacy.
No true scotsman is only a fallacy when there aren't conditions placed on being a 'true scotsman' other than someone's opinion. There are factual biblically based conditions on Christianity therefore no true scotsman does not apply.

Nice dodge. So I'm gonna go ahead and assume you have no evidence other than your preferred delusion.

If the evidence of God is contact with God, then what 'evidence' can i possiably possess myself? I can only arrange a meeting or rather tell you what you have to do to arrange your own meeting.

I had it too...

Probably not. You had sincerity and support from people with the same feelings.

then realized it's just smoke and mirrors force fed to me by my family and peers.

As i just said.

It's the same reason most Christian children believe in Santa. Because it's jammed down their throats from birth and everyone around them tells them it's true.

The Proof God offers has nothing to do with your peers or parents. If your total experience hinges on what your peers and family said/did then you never A/S/K as outlined in luke 11. Therefore you never 'had it.'

That's exactly how I can tell you what it ISN'T... it ISN'T reality. It's fiction.

Because you did do what God asked of you and found nothing?
I'm sure for you this all somehow makes sense. I do not share your belief.

And would only be a reflection of the writer's ideas on morality or righteousness. That is the limit of its scope and meaning. So if we are to take the bible... it's bronze age fiction and is only relevant to the culture that created it. For us in the year 2013 in America... it's meaningless for any purpose other than to study and bygone and archaic culture.

Your right as a form of morality God's righteousness is not applicable to mordern values, which is why i have made an attempt to seperate the two. Because the modern understanding is based on works/deeds. and what God has established is not.

In fact Thor and the Hulk would be a more meaningful text on morality and righteousness as they are more closely linked with our own culture. The creators of these fictions are products of our culture.

You've seem to miss the point. Hulk and thor was use to establish a context, you speaking to content of hulk and thor.

Of course it is. God is a creation of man. His "righteousness" is a direct reflection of the ideas of his creators.

Actually it doesn't.
Man's morlity as I have said 6 dozen times already is based on works deeds and God's is not. There are two completely different ways of determining value here, you keep trying to combine them into one.

again God does not look at works to judge good or bad
Man does.

If God is a creation of man then why did we give God a value system that is completely forgein to us? You still don't seem to get it even given your mastery of the bible.

Because our moral standards are based on the idea that acts themselves have a right and wrong value.

No they don't. Our acts are neutral.

Show me a culture that shows an indifference to murder (not killing but murder.)

Our culture judges whether they are good or bad.

If I kill than man that hurt my little girl... most would think me morally just. If I kill the same man for no reason at all... I'm a murderer.

Then you mean to say that everytime a killer is identified as a murderer then He is always deemed morally wrong and owes a debt to soceity?

The ACT was the same. The reason is moral or not. And God, Thor, or Hulks fictional stance on the issue has nothing to do with reality other than what their creators think about the subject.

Unless you are to be judged by Him, on the bases of His standard.

God's righteousness is based in fiction and only reflects the views of his creators.

Can you support your claim?

[

---

It depends on what the bible says about genocide. If we were OT Jews Yes, but Being NT Christians No. What we 'do' must still fit with in the confines of what God wants.
If God say do not murder and you kill in His name your still in sin.

An example of your god's morality changing - something you've expressly denied.

God's standards have not changed. Jesus Died because they did not/will not ever change. However because of His death we/Christians are no longer held to those standards that those who have not accepted Christ are still being held to. Everyone else, that's a different matter.

Glad we agree that your god's rules are neither good nor moral.

So do you now see a need to seperate the mordern defination of 'good and morality' from that of God's?

Absolutly

Yes!

This life is not about 'forcing us' to do anything. In this life we are free to express what it is that is in our hearts. Accountablity comes after this life is over.

Except, by your own admission, he sis all about forcing his standard upon us - when he chooses to do so is irrelevant.

So long as you're aware.

But, according to you, we must do this even if we dont wish any such thing.

no, You only 'must do this' if you want to be apart of His creation. Those who wish to seperate themselves from Him are free to do so.

But I am making a judgment - and the judgment is that the shift in morality is wrong. It has been made through propaganda and not rational discourse and the given justification is invalid. And don't accuse me of "following the propaganda blindly" without even knowing my political position on the matter - you are the only one who comes out looking like an idiot.

Are you still apart of the culture? are you still connected to the 'grid?' do you still benfit from soceity and the results of the actions taken in the middle east? If yes to any of these questions, then the observation can be made that you do not seem too overly convicted to your 'political views' when they go against your 'morality.' Your just a objector in name only. As such my points still stand.

The shift in moral consideration given to suspected terrorists is the perfect example of fear perpetrated by propaganda is an irrational method of changing the society's moral outlook. Its a step backwards in our moral growth.

Indeed. but so is every step we take that takes us further from God.

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

I asked you to look up 'fact', not 'propaganda'. However, notice the use of the word 'or' - indicating that propaganda doesn't always use facts and also notice the absence of any support for your argument that propaganda can change facts.

Do you want example of Nazi propaganda that changed the Historial facts concerning the 'aryan' race?

Why did you quote "Statement of belief"? I did not say a fact was a statement of belief.

Yes, you did.

a fact is a statement of belief that can be proven or disproved.

If you are going to lie, do a better job.

my mistake Statement OR Belief, not statement of belief.

['Planet' is a classification - not an inherent property. I dentification of Pluto as a planet was incorrect before 1989.

Yet the identification of pluto's planetary status was herolded as Fact.

That we were not aware of the actual fact and mistakenly taught wrong something incorrect only to correct ourselves later is not evidence that "facts change",

Actually it does. You may not like that fact, but pluto was considered a planet since it's discovery. It wasn't till a few years ago did that fact change. The is a clear cut example of a fact being altered to reflect a different understanding of a given belief.

much less that they could be done by propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Text_books
The facts in these text books were change to reflect Nazi propaganda. Nazi Children were also taught 'facts' did not change as well. wonder why?

Except, your god's righteousness also instructs in what 'should be done'. That he goes on to add that "you can't do it" is irrelevant.

How so?

---

can't get the above post to show up

[genkaus]

I honestly do not believe you guys truly understand this fallacy.
No true scotsman is only a fallacy when there aren't conditions placed on being a 'true scotsman' other than someone's opinion. There are factual biblically based conditions on Christianity therefore no true scotsman does not apply.

It seems you are the one ignorant of what the No True Scotsman fallacy entails. It doesn't apply when there are no conditions on being a true Scotsman or when those conditions are the result of someone's opinion - it applies when those conditions are generated ad hoc. Here, you are not only claiming that the criteria for being a Christian is enumerated in the Bible, you are claiming that the criteria applies as you've interpreted it. That's what makes your argument a No True Scotsman fallacy.

If God is a creation of man then why did we give God a value system that is completely forgein to us?

That's simple enough - a morality that values actions over intentions is a tough one to follow. Christianity is all about giving people the easy way out in order to attract more followers - which is why those who wrote it made it all about intentions and not actions.

Because our moral standards are based on the idea that acts themselves have a right and wrong value.

No they don't. Our acts are neutral.

Show me a culture that shows an indifference to murder (not killing but murder.)

Loaded question. Classifying a act of killing as murder automatically entails a moral judgement.

Unless you are to be judged by Him, on the bases of His standard.

Good thing we are not.

God's standards have not changed. Jesus Died because they did not/will not ever change. However because of His death we/Christians are no longer held to those standards that those who have not accepted Christ are still being held to. Everyone else, that's a different matter.

As rationalizations go, that's a pathetic one.

A standard is classified as such based on what it applies to. And if it no longer applies, then the standard has changed. If before, people were held to saying or doing X and now, they are held to "accepting Christ", then the standard has changed.

So do you now see a need to seperate the mordern defination of 'good and morality' from that of God's?

No.

So long as you're aware.

All I'm aware of is your claim that your god forces his standards upon us.

no, You only 'must do this' if you want to be apart of His creation. Those who wish to seperate themselves from Him are free to do so.

Not according to your prior argument. Freedom to separate oneself from him would mean being no longer bound by his standard of morality - which you claim is something he'd force upon us in afterlife.

Are you still apart of the culture? are you still connected to the 'grid?' do you still benfit from soceity and the results of the actions taken in the middle east? If yes to any of these questions, then the observation can be made that you do not seem too overly convicted to your 'political views' when they go against your 'morality.' Your just a objector in name only. As such my points still stand.

Well, the answer to all those questions is 'NO'. So, your point fails.

Not to mention, the questions themselves are malformed and the conclusions do not follow. Even if I was a part of the culture or connected to it, it would not automatically imply my being a part of all aspects of that culture, nor would it imply complicity with all parts. Therefore, the observation that my political views go against my morality would be invalid.

Indeed. but so is every step we take that takes us further from God.

If its your god we're talking about, then every step taken away from his morality is a sign of moral growth.

Do you want example of Nazi propaganda that changed the Historial facts concerning the 'aryan' race?

Sure. Give me an example of propaganda that actually changed facts rather than just misidentifying and misrepresenting them.

my mistake Statement OR Belief, not statement of belief.

You really need to work on your language - it's getting pretty pathetic.

Yet the identification of pluto's planetary status was herolded as Fact.

And yet, it wasn't. Thus showing that not everything that is regarded as a fact is not factual.

Actually it does. You may not like that fact, but pluto was considered a planet since it's discovery. It wasn't till a few years ago did that fact change. The is a clear cut example of a fact being altered to reflect a different understanding of a given belief.

Have you forgotten the definition of 'fact' that you quoted yourself? A fact is a description of reality as it is, not as it is considered to be. That Pluto was considered a planet does not make its planetary status a fact. The human understanding of fact was corrected - the fact itself remained unchanged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Text_books
The facts in these text books were change to reflect Nazi propaganda. Nazi Children were also taught 'facts' did not change as well. wonder why?

And in being changed, they were no longer facts. Once again, work on your English or you won't even understand these simple concepts.

How so?

How so, what?

[Drich]

It seems you are the one ignorant of what the No True Scotsman fallacy entails. It doesn't apply when there are no conditions on being a true Scotsman or when those conditions are the result of someone's opinion - it applies when those conditions are generated ad hoc.

Agreed.

Here, you are not only claiming that the criteria for being a Christian is enumerated in the Bible, you are claiming that the criteria applies as you've interpreted it. That's what makes your argument a No True Scotsman fallacy.

No. For your arguement to work I have to interperate what is plainly written in scripture. No interpertation is needed. It is clearly defined.
Christ himself limits the terms and conditions of Christianity in mat 7.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Christ clearly draws a line between True Christians and those who only think their Christians.

Again No interppertation needed When Christ the founder of this religion makes a clear cut division between 'A true Christian' and one who goes through the motions.

That's simple enough - a morality that values actions over intentions is a tough one to follow. Christianity is all about giving people the easy way out in order to attract more followers - which is why those who wrote it made it all about intentions and not actions.

Then why isn't the majorty of christianity practiced this way? look at catholicism, it is works based. It claims to be the orginal version of Christianity. If it is as you say, and christianity was based in a 'works free enviorment' to attract members then why was their a focous on works for 2/3's of the church's history?

I can tell you why, because the 'church' followed man's morality and ascribed it to God. Our morality then like now is based on works, and our default to morality is based on works. so when we wander from God our works based sense of 'morality' takes over. Because this is the heart and mind of man at it's best. God being seperate and apart from man, has established a righteousness that does not make sense to man, so we do not naturally adapt to it.

Show me a culture that shows an indifference to murder (not killing but murder.)

Loaded question. Classifying a act of killing as murder automatically entails a moral judgement.

It's not a loaded question because One can identify the act of murder without making a moral judgement. The fact that every culture considers murder a crime is irrelevant. The reason you need to classify this as a loaded question is because it disproves your assertion that man act's are netural in the sight of other men.

Unless you are to be judged by Him, on the bases of His standard.

Good thing we are not.

It's not over yet, we will see.

God's standards have not changed. Jesus Died because they did not/will not ever change. However because of His death we/Christians are no longer held to those standards that those who have not accepted Christ are still being held to. Everyone else, that's a different matter.

As rationalizations go, that's a pathetic one.

As far as dismissals go...

A standard is classified as such based on what it applies to. And if it no longer applies, then the standard has changed. If before, people were held to saying or doing X and now, they are held to "accepting Christ", then the standard has changed.

Good thing that's not the case. Because "X" is still the standard. "X" is what everyone who has not accepted Christ will be held to account for, therefore "X"/The Standard has not changed.

So do you now see a need to seperate the mordern defination of 'good and morality' from that of God's?

No.

Then maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[Not according to your prior argument. Freedom to separate oneself from him would mean being no longer bound by his standard of morality - which you claim is something he'd force upon us in afterlife.

No. We are judged in the after life, to decern whether or not we have shown ourself to truly want to spend eternity with God or to be eternally seperated from Him. In this seperation we are free from him or His rules.

Are you still apart of the culture? are you still connected to the 'grid?' do you still benfit from soceity and the results of the actions taken in the middle east? If yes to any of these questions, then the observation can be made that you do not seem too overly convicted to your 'political views' when they go against your 'morality.' Your just a objector in name only. As such my points still stand.

Sure. Give me an example of propaganda that actually changed facts rather than just misidentifying and misrepresenting them.

From your perspective you can say they have been misidentified or misrepersented. In 1920' and 30' germany they had no way to to identify this misrepersentation, because of the book burnings there was no point of reference therefore for them the 'facts' changed.

again because hitler thought and taught as you do "That facts do not change" all he need do was remove what he indentified as propaganda, and supplied 'facts' to the german people and they held them as absolutes. North Korean leadership has also done this for 3 generations to great benfit in keeping the kim's in power.

This way of thinking is dangerous because it does not lend itself to truth, there are no real absolutes. and without them a people are doomed to go where ever the 'facts' (and those who control the facts) lead them.

You really need to work on your language - it's getting pretty pathetic.

I will try

Yet the identification of pluto's planetary status was herolded as Fact.

And yet, it wasn't. Thus showing that not everything that is regarded as a fact is not factual.

I did not say it was factual, but that it was upheld as fact, and taught as fact. Then that fact changed when more information was made avaiable.

This is what the Nazi's and North korea has done. They equate ALL fact as truth as you have, then elimate all information except the facts they provide leaving a fact based public to only one possiable conclusion..,.

Now how do you differ in your worship of 'facts?'

If your ablity to worship 'fact' as truth was somehow limited, how would you possiably know if the fact you had were indeed factual? How are you any different than a person living in nazi germany or N/korea, if everything you are is based on 'facts' that can change based on knoweledge that may or may not be avaiable?

The problem with fact worship is the lie needed to hold it all together. The lie is that 'facts' are indeed Absolute truth. (or they are treated as such.) When in truth the changing nature of fact disqualifies it as absolute truth. Because absolute truth does not change, while facts do.

without absolutes, your 'truth'/facts becomes a controled variable. This variable then because a matter of will to the people or to men like the Kims or even to a hitler. (The content/results may vary, but the method of control remains the same.) however if there are any absolutes to compare to (like say God's truth) then soceity has the chance of refinding center again.

[Godlesspanther]

You can make all the appeals to a magic story book, the realm of woo-woo, and baseless assertion you want but it still comes down to believing stuff that is just too stupid to be believable.

Xtianity in a nutshell: worship a dead hippie on a stick so that you can go to Big Rock Candy Mountain after you die. I don't believe it because it's just too stupid to be believable.