General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

Thank you.

Taking credit for another's sufferings like a true Christian.

There are two sides to every Arguement. The effort expended is the same on both sides.

[Mudhammam]

Taking credit for another's sufferings like a true Christian.

There are two sides to every Arguement. The effort expended is the same on both sides.

1. I was speaking in jest--mostly.
2. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" is not an argument.

[Drich]

There are two sides to every Arguement. The effort expended is the same on both sides.

1. I was speaking in jest--mostly.
2. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" is not an argument.

Where has that Arguement been used?

[Mudhammam]

1. I was speaking in jest--mostly.
2. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" is not an argument.

Where has that Arguement been used?

In pretty much every statement you make about God, his character, his will, his desires, displeasure, man's purpose, etc. etc.

[Drich]

I have forgotten about you, just can't respond to big posts on a tablet or phone. Should be able to get to you tomorrow. (Been on the road the last couple of days.)

[Drich]

Please improve your spelling. Turning on spell-check shouldn't be that hard.

turning it on is not the issue. Getting it to work is.

It doesn't do that either. There are no limitations applicable to the concept of non-requirement.

What makes you believe a non requirement exists here? Even if the authority of said command is relegated to just the Christianity the requirement stands.

I am asking for the examples you have labeled bits and pieces.

You mean like Omni-benevolence and papal authority.

Omni benevolence is offered to the followers of Christ, it is the application of Omni benevolence to all of humanity that is wrong. Papal authority is not different than what David koresh has done.

So in the first instance forgiveness can be found because of a simple error, while the other who worship outside of the bible, will be upto God to judge.

Again we are allowed to seek God any way we wish. However that does not obligate God to honor our efforts.

You assume just because we are allowed or can do something that it will be equally as beneficial as doing it God's way.
This is an unsupported assertion.

You are still thinking of Christianity as absolutist form of religion.

It seems you just can't quite comprehend basic grace, and the fundamentals of atonement.

In an economy (meaning In biblically based Christianity) of Grace one has freedom to worship God to the best of his own ability.

Meaningless equivocation

Fallacies of Logical Structure: Equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word switches meaning in the middle of an argument - when it expresses one concept in one premise and another concept in another premise or in the conclusion.
-Google

The meaning here did not change. You simply became aware of the full intended meaning.

- the only ways of "seeking" that your god would honor should be regarded as the ways that are allowed.

That would not be consistent with the parable of the wise and foolish builder. Again I am not making this stuff up as i go. Christ himself has been recorded in giving this parable that allows for two types of houses being built. One to code and one the way we want. Again God allowed both houses to be built therefore God allows us to seek Him any way we want.

Validation does not come in the building of the house but through the storms that follow.

"Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks".

This is an extremely near sighted statement. Again what I have said reconciles the teachings of Christ in one's approach to God. This is not my philosophy, these stories are how God communicated to us what to expect. How we are to be tested and judged.

I was never a part of Christianity - so I have no idea which part of my representation would make you think I was. And I can't change what I don't know.

That's not what you said in your last post. In reference to Christianity you said 'Been there done that.' then proceeded to make your point.

According to your arguments, mainstream Christianity does that as well.

Not true. as you have yet to establish the term 'main stream christianity.'

Unless you are now arguing that Catholics aren't Christians either, Christians do say that your god is Omni-benevolent.

Catholics up hold the teachings of the pope over Christ. That was why there was a split from Catholicism 500 some odd years ago.

Look it up on wiki - it states pretty clearly there that they follow the bible.

And i provided links to official websites where the book of doctrine and covenants took precedent. thus invalidating your wiki claim, and if you keep reading I will post a quote from the founder of that religion that further refutes your claim.

this is another unsupported assertion.

No, its based on your own arguments about how mainstream christian concepts are not biblical and sometimes contrary to it.

Unsupported means it is your understanding without any evidence supporting what you have said here.

You say my arguments say they support you. I said nut-uh. Since they by your own words identify this as my argument, my nut-uh ends the discussion unless you can provide a quote to the contrary. this is what makes your assertion is unsupported.

Still not seeing anything other mainstream Christians don't do on a regular basis.

Then maybe you are misidentifying 'main stream Christianity.'

Other than treating those alternate sources as divine as well. Is that the condition?

Yes

You are allowed to borrow from other sources, treat them as superseding the bible and ignore parts of bible as long as you don't consider them holy?

What have I taught that comes from another source? you made a claim now provide proof.

So, point of fact, they do teach doctrine out of bible - but not just the bible. Similar to rest of the Christians.

Again no. I defined Doctrine. Incase you forgot Doctrine is : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
-Merriam Webster.
There is not one valid principle in the bible that the Mormons hold to if it is not also found in one of their other religious books.

Which makes any share principles just that share principles. Again the bible's only use is that of a recruitment tool for the Mormon church. other wise it is dismissed as being corrupt by the jews.

The point is invalidated by the fact that their books are different. However, the bible is a part of Mormon reading curriculum.

untrue. Joseph Smith Started Mormonism because he thought the bible was far too corrupt to follow.

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327)

Do you see how a supported assertion works? I have taken your claim made one to the contary, and paired it with evidence to the contrary thus invalidating your claim.

Now we have something more than my word to go on. We have what the orginator of this religion said about the bible, and not just your personal beliefs. As the founder of this religion trumps the beliefs of everyone in it or speaking of it, it is his words that define true mormonism. Again he said the bible as orginally written was valid.. The current bibles we have are not orginals, therefore invalid as they are all subject to the pens of "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests." therefore invalid. That is why He penned the new book of covenants and doctrine. He took what he wanted and discarded the rest. Much like many people think we are to do with the OT nowadays.

then it should be very easy to site an example.

I just did.

No you didn't.

Again you do not seem to understand the meaning of the word interpretation. To interpret means to explain/to put into your own words. to reinterpret. I have not explained anything in this instance. I have posted what the bible actually says. So again that is not an interpretation that is called quoting.

Those words do not appear in your bible. Therefore, you were not quoting. You are putting stuff from your bible in your own words - therefore, interpretation.

Actually sport i cut and pasted from the easy to read version, which is indeed a bible. See the following:

Because what I said has nothing to do with interpretation. This again is an example of intellectual dishonesty. You have changed the meaning of a given word 'interpretation' to maintain a failed argument.
Romans 3
21 But God has a way to make people right, and it has nothing to do with the law. He has now shown us that new way, which the law and the prophets told us about. 22 God makes people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. He does this for all who believe in Christ. Everyone is the same. 23 All have sinned and are not good enough to share God’s divine greatness. 24 They are made right with God by his grace. This (atonement) is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. 25-26 God gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins through their faith in him. God can forgive them because the blood sacrifice of Jesus pays for their sins. God gave Jesus to show that he always does what is right and fair. He was right in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And in our own time he still does what is right. God worked all this out in a way that allows him to judge people fairly and still make right any person who has faith in Jesus.

27 So do we have any reason to boast about ourselves? No reason at all. And why not? Because we are depending on the way of faith, not on what we have done in following the law. 28 I mean we are made right with God through faith, not through what we have done to follow the law. This is what we believe. 29 God is not only the God of the Jews. He is also the God of those who are not Jews. 30 There is only one God. He will make Jews right with him by their faith, and he will also make non-Jews right with him through their faith. 31 So do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? Not at all! In fact, faith causes us to be what the law actually wants.

This is what the bible says about atonement. no interpretation here just a straight up quote.

I interpret it differently. You interpret "all" from "all have sinned" to refer to whole of humanity. I interpret it to refer to just the sinners, i.e. those who don't follow the law. Which means, there are two ways to "get right" - either have faith or follow the law.

You didn't read 'ALL' of Romans 3 did you? If you did you would have not had a need "interpret" who the word 'all' refers to. Verses 9-20 tell us who 'all' is exactly.

9 So are we Jews better than other people? No, we have already said that those who are Jews, as well as those who are not Jews, are the same. They are all guilty of sin. 10 As the Scriptures say,


“There is no one doing what is right,
not even one.
11 There is no one who understands.
There is no one who is trying to be with God.
12 They have all turned away from him,
and now they are of no use to anyone.
There is no one who does good,
not even one.”

13 “Their words come from mouths that are like open graves.
They use their lying tongues to deceive others.”


“Their words are like the poison of snakes.”


14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and angry words.”


15 “They are always ready to kill someone.
16 Everywhere they go they cause trouble and ruin.
17 They don’t know how to live in peace.”


18 “They have no fear or respect for God.”

19 What the law says is for those who are under the law. It stops anyone from making excuses. And it brings the whole world under God’s judgment, 20 because no one can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows us our sin.

So you see old sport, 'all' Means ALL. That is why when 21-31 refers to all we know ALL does not mean some. Because as verse 20 says None can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows our sin.
This includes the laws that govern not only the moral code buy religious acts. We know this because the original Greek word that is translated into the word 'law' in English is νόμος or transliterated nomos. It means:
I.anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command
of any law whatsoever
A. a law or rule producing a state approved of God
B. by the observance of which is approved of God

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3551&t=KJV

Oh, I think you are wrong about your whole worldview - starting with your belief in god. But that is neither here nor there.

The pertinent point is this:
1. You are making claims about your god.

Such as? quote the claims i have made.

2. You are wrong about some things in your claims (your admission).

Examples where i said i was wrong about God.

3. Therefore, some of your claims about god are wrong. (From 1 and 2)

Before you can conclude first you must establish the claim.

Figuring out which parts are wrong is your mess and it isn't my problem to sort out.

They are if your going to make this assertion.

However until you do sort them out, don't make claims based on the assumption that all your assertions are right.

I clearly state which claims are scripturally back and which are not. There is nothing here I've said to you in this thread that is not scripturally backed.

As a bible based Christian I can assure you little of what you believe about Christianity is bible based. Therefore the god you think is the God of the bible is indeed a construct of your own private understanding. This version of god MAYBE a bastardize version of the god of some fail version pop Christianity. Something you picked up while attending Sunday school, but is a long way from the God of the bible.

I don't have any "private" understanding of your Christian god. I simply take the version given by mainstream Christianity at its face value. In effect, what you are saying is that the mainstream Christianity is worshiping a bastardize version of your interpretation of biblical god.

Your "Interpretation" of 'Mainstream Christianity' is indeed your own personal brand/private version of Christianity. Because you have interpreted doctrine, and not quoted or represented any known denomination in your efforts.

Again - never had any faith and not angry. And I'm not sure how well mainstream Christianity would react to your assertion that their god is "not based on anything of this world nor of the next"

They typically quote a prophet, spiritual leader, some tradition or counsul or 'new doctrine' (not found in the bible) that supports what they believe.

Again, unless those passages literally say that "To worship God incorrectly is a sin", you are providing an interpretation.

The first 5 commandments are commandment concerning the worship of God. to break any commandments is a sin.

How is that?

Or do you need me to establish breaking a commandment is a sin? or do you need me to establish that the first 5 commandments are all laws concerning the worship of God?

Why not?
We have been entrusted with the bible. I and people like me represent the God of the Bible. Therefore if we teach only from the bible then we can be trusted to share with you all that Man has been entrusted with.

And, according to you, part of what you teach is wrong and you don't know which part.

Where did I say this You need to quote my words otherwise your efforts to say otherwise will be dismissed.

What makes you think we have no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong?

You do.

Again provide a quote. Something tangible. Something I have actually said, not the personal strawmen you have constructed based on my words..
This is intellectual dishonesty. Otherwise Show me some proof.

And yet, others using the same bible are trying to point in another direction.

like who? Who are these others you keep referencing? Maintream Christianity? What denomination is the mainstream? So me doctrine that points you in the other direction based on the bible.

Again you can't. Your claims are impotent. Your words are meaningless. your efforts are little more than strawmen constructed to support a confirmation bias. A bias you are not willing to examine. That is why I have said you burry your head in the sand. Show me something that proves you have the capsity to work and intellegently discuss a topic by it's intended defining parameters and not something based in a dishonest assessment of the situation. This means if you are going to say I said something cut and paste it and provide a link/post number to what was said.

otherwise i will leave you to chase your tail on your own.

Again, not an ex-believer, nor angry. Just disgusted.

I would be too if my reasoning forced me to believe what you do.

Just how stupid are you?

I don't hold any specific beliefs regarding Christianity - I accept what they say at face value.

This is a lie. Your exegesis of Romans 3 you did earlier disproves this statement. You did not take what Christianity says about Romans 3 nor did you follow what the context of the passage said at face value. You reinterpreted the passage to suit your argument. This makes you 'stupid' or a hypocrite and a liar. So which is it sport?

You go around saying your god is Omni-benevolent, I'm fine with that. You go around saying he isn't. I'm fine with that as well. Mormons say they are Christians because they follow the bible - okay. You say they aren't - fine. I'll just sit by and point out the contradictions.

You haven't pointed out a contradiction yet, because you have failed to establish one single instance. You "interpret" what I say and then fabricate a condition to force a contradiction. Again, youre either stupid (your term) or a liar.

My belief regarding Christianity is simple:
1. You say you believe in bible.
2. You say you believe in Jesus.
3. You say you are a Christian.

You've missed a step between 2 and 3. This is exactly what i mean. in your sumation, you leave out information or even fabericate it to make a point. That is why you need to quote any position that is not your own.

Examples? What denomination? What teaching? Where did it originate? How does it compare to what is written in the bible?

Or is this just another unsupported assertion based on your 'expert' opinion of Christianity?

Omnibenevolence. Multiple denominations. Medieval theologians. And according to you, it contradicts the bible.

your a one horse pony show huh?

Ok, I can work with this. Is my claim supported or unsupported by the bible?

As established in another thread on morality about an year ago - when you say "righteousness", you are simply using a fancy word for god's morality. So, basically, what you are saying here is "god's standard of morality is based on god's morality. And since we cannot meet that standard of morality on our own, he created a loophole".

Which amounts to a change in his morality.

You've shown yourself to be a confirmed liar/hypocrite or just plain stupid. (Again your word not mine) I can't take you word here you need to provide a link to what your quoting.

No. Even obedience is not a constant in man's morality.

Irrelevant and pathetic deflection. My statement was "General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality".

So if man's obedience is not a constant in man's morality than it can not be attributed to man. I provided several examples where 'obedience' was considered an immoral act, therefore obedience is not an attribute to man's morality. That means everything you said concerning the foundation of man's stability in morality is now invalid.

Getting back to the actual argument:
General obedience, if constant, would be an aspect of man's morality - because he is being guided by the principle of obeying.

And I have conclusively shown that it is not. I have sited historical examples where obedience was deemed immoral. Therefore obedience is not a constant.

The constancy of your god's morality is determined by what he commands and if his commands keep changing over time - which they do.

according to who? God's Morality is whatever He says it is. That is why I have said repeatedly that our acts in of themselves hold no intrinsic value. It is why we/Christians do what we do that God looks at not the what. NonChristians are judged by the what you do.

then cut and paste. You have already demonstrated a willingness for dishonesty in this conversation if and when it suits you. I can not take your statement at face value.

Ad-hom attacks don't work against demonstrable evidence.

Just because I 'attacked you' does not make it '
Ad-hom. The fact that I cited an example shows my attack was founded in fact and not of emotion.

The point being that your god's command of raping, killing and pillaging was not a misattribution and was consistent with his morality at the time. And yes, the point is to prove that I was right and I accept your concession.

My issue is with your use of the term morality. Morality has nothing to do with raping and killing, because again these acts in of themselves hold no moral value. The term your looking for is "God willed/God's will" (for raping and killing.) Again, 'morality' is found in our obedience to God's will, and not in of a given act.

Also I did not see any follow up on Euthie's 2 horn.. Am i to understand you have accepted what I have said there?

You are not - I provided the wiki link to the problems associated the second horn. The problems your theology gets skewered with.

Nothing the second horn provides skewers anything. As explained the second horn is only valid if one holds to the idea that a given set of rules is a constant.
Again, the 'rules' in of themselves hold no value to God against one of His followers.

Oh, I've seen these arguments before. The only problem is, your god's morality is worse than shit decomposing at the bottom of a compost heap.

Again compared to what? What pop culture currently deems as acceptable? The problem with trying to levy a judgment like you are making is, that you do not have anything solid to stand on. Because nothing God has done/command is any different than what man himself has done.
The only difference is having the authority to authorize such an act and deem it righteous.

And that is compared to the morality available to philosophers of that age. Since then, man's morality has been continuously evolving and getting better - so there is nothing disgusting enough for me to compare your god's morality to with respect to today's morality.

So your saying almost 4000 years after the event described man's 'morality' was better? That's funny, because the active genocide of the plains Indians and African slavery was in full swing.. So when did this 'evolution' occur? 100 years after that during Nazi Germany's rise to power? What about 50 years after that? When we were in the middle of the cold war and bothsides 'morally justified' the complete destruction of the planet several times over? How about we fast forward 20 more years to the coalition of western nations that invaded Iraq and stole it's resources, and stripped those people of their national identity.. Lets do another 10 where Russia and china are gathering power and grabbing land, and rediverting resources to their homelands leaving the indigenous to starve??? Or did you simply mean your particular community who voted yes on gay marriage are the ones who are evolving?

Can't you see that is the very definition of popular morality i was speaking of? How then can one take a superficial trivial element of pop culture and pretend it is a standard of measure for anything? It is like using disco as a standard in which all music can be measured. To grade and judge all music in comparison of how disco is compiled is utter foolishness. The only thing that can be measured using disco as a standard is whether or not another piece of music is disco or not. In turn you are using your disco standard of 'morality' to judge God. at best all you can do is judge whether or not God's will matches your disco. It doesn't, so what!

You see, the way you talk about personal standards ending up in toilet - that's where your god's standards already are. And I've no intention of letting mine sink that low.

Translation: "I am groovy because I Do the hussle:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TsRdkrxl4g

"If God does not do the hussle, He is a jive turkey! I can only worship a God who hussles."

The question then becomes what happens when the 'disco' ceases to be the measure in which pop culture uses to grade music?

[genkaus]

What makes you believe a non requirement exists here?

Your reply to my question regarding what are the limitations to being a Christian.

Omni benevolence is offered to the followers of Christ, it is the application of Omni benevolence to all of humanity that is wrong. Papal authority is not different than what David koresh has done.

So in the first instance forgiveness can be found because of a simple error, while the other who worship outside of the bible, will be upto God to judge.

Thus proving my point - accepting extra-biblical teachings does not stop you from being a Christian.

Fallacies of Logical Structure: Equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word switches meaning in the middle of an argument - when it expresses one concept in one premise and another concept in another premise or in the conclusion.
-Google

The meaning here did not change. You simply became aware of the full intended meaning.

The meaning of the word "allowed" in your statement "you are allowed to understand god however you want" was changed.

That would not be consistent with the parable of the wise and foolish builder. Again I am not making this stuff up as i go. Christ himself has been recorded in giving this parable that allows for two types of houses being built. One to code and one the way we want. Again God allowed both houses to be built therefore God allows us to seek Him any way we want.

Validation does not come in the building of the house but through the storms that follow.

However, the fact does not change that both of them are building a house - meaning, even if Mormons interpret Christianity differently, they'd still be Christians.

This is an extremely near sighted statement. Again what I have said reconciles the teachings of Christ in one's approach to God. This is not my philosophy, these stories are how God communicated to us what to expect. How we are to be tested and judged.

The same way a teacher communicates which answers are expected and how the students would be tested and judged - so my statement that ""Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks"." - describes your philosophy pretty accurately.

That's not what you said in your last post. In reference to Christianity you said 'Been there done that.' then proceeded to make your point.

I don't have to be a Christian to evaluate Christianity.

Not true. as you have yet to establish the term 'main stream christianity.'

Fr0d0 did that.

Catholics up hold the teachings of the pope over Christ. That was why there was a split from Catholicism 500 some odd years ago.

So, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christians?

And i provided links to official websites where the book of doctrine and covenants took precedent. thus invalidating your wiki claim, and if you keep reading I will post a quote from the founder of that religion that further refutes your claim.

And why would those taking precedence stop them from being Christians?

this is another unsupported assertion.

Unsupported means it is your understanding without any evidence supporting what you have said here.

You say my arguments say they support you. I said nut-uh. Since they by your own words identify this as my argument, my nut-uh ends the discussion unless you can provide a quote to the contrary. this is what makes your assertion is unsupported.

Except my understanding is based on the evidence you provided - not your so-say. When I say "your arguments support my claim" I mean the evidence provided within your arguments.

Specifically, you've given evidence through biblical quote that your god is not omni-benevolent - I accept that evidence. Meaning, that particular claim is extra-biblical. But it is also a claim that most Christians believe - therefore, extra-biblical claims are accepted within Christianity.

Then maybe you are misidentifying 'main stream Christianity.'

Then correct that identification.

Other than treating those alternate sources as divine as well. Is that the condition?

Yes

Finally a straight answer - so, what's the basis for this condition?

What have I taught that comes from another source? you made a claim now provide proof.

"You" here refers to Christians in general, you moron. And you are the one who proved that by proving that bible is not the source of "omni-benevolence".

Again no. I defined Doctrine. Incase you forgot Doctrine is : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
-Merriam Webster.
There is not one valid principle in the bible that the Mormons hold to if it is not also found in one of their other religious books.

Which makes any share principles just that share principles. Again the bible's only use is that of a recruitment tool for the Mormon church. other wise it is dismissed as being corrupt by the jews.

Whether or not they are shared is irrelevant - if the biblical principles are held, then bible is a doctrine for them.

untrue. Joseph Smith Started Mormonism because he thought the bible was far too corrupt to follow.

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327)

Do you see how a supported assertion works? I have taken your claim made one to the contary, and paired it with evidence to the contrary thus invalidating your claim.

Now we have something more than my word to go on. We have what the orginator of this religion said about the bible, and not just your personal beliefs. As the founder of this religion trumps the beliefs of everyone in it or speaking of it, it is his words that define true mormonism. Again he said the bible as orginally written was valid.. The current bibles we have are not orginals, therefore invalid as they are all subject to the pens of "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests." therefore invalid. That is why He penned the new book of covenants and doctrine. He took what he wanted and discarded the rest. Much like many people think we are to do with the OT nowadays.

Sounds like a true-blue Christian to me - say that you believe in the bible as it was originally written. Admit that it was corrupted by humans over time. Then go on to pick and choose the parts that suit you.

then it should be very easy to site an example.

No you didn't.

Yes I did - the thread itself is an example.

You didn't read 'ALL' of Romans 3 did you? If you did you would have not had a need "interpret" who the word 'all' refers to. Verses 9-20 tell us who 'all' is exactly.

9 So are we Jews better than other people? ......
So you see old sport, 'all' Means ALL. That is why when 21-31 refers to all we know ALL does not mean some. Because as verse 20 says None can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows our sin.
This includes the laws that govern not only the moral code buy religious acts. We know this because the original Greek word that is translated into the word 'law' in English is νόμος or transliterated nomos. It means:
I.anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command
of any law whatsoever
A. a law or rule producing a state approved of God
B. by the observance of which is approved of God

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3551&t=KJV

I see, so the "all" here refers to all the sinners and not the whole world.

Because, you see, in 15, 16 and 17, your bible makes specific claims which are demonstrably untrue regarding the whole world.

Such as? quote the claims i have made.

Every statement about god you make is a claim about god.

Examples where i said i was wrong about God.

You state that some of your statements about god are wrong - speciic examples are not necessary.

Before you can conclude first you must establish the claim.

Done.

They are if your going to make this assertion.

Nope - still your problem, sport.

I clearly state which claims are scripturally back and which are not. There is nothing here I've said to you in this thread that is not scripturally backed.

You mean other than your statement that god-claims should be scripturally backed.

Your "Interpretation" of 'Mainstream Christianity' is indeed your own personal brand/private version of Christianity.

Nope, its Fr0d0's.

They typically quote a prophet, spiritual leader, some tradition or counsul or 'new doctrine' (not found in the bible) that supports what they believe.

So?

The first 5 commandments are commandment concerning the worship of God. to break any commandments is a sin.

How is that?

Or do you need me to establish breaking a commandment is a sin? or do you need me to establish that the first 5 commandments are all laws concerning the worship of God?

Poor showing indeed. You need to establish that the first 5 commandments are the only correct way to worship and thus any deviation constitutes breaking them. Then you need to establish that having extra-biblical sources contravenes those commandments. And you need to do this by only referring to biblical quotes and without any interpretation.

Then and only then you can claim that the bible says "worshiping god incorrectly (incorrectly here meaning anything deviating from your standards) is a sin".

I also see you've ignored the next part of this argument.

Where did I say this You need to quote my words otherwise your efforts to say otherwise will be dismissed.

Search of your own posts - I'm getting tired of shovelling through your crap to tell you what shit you said.

Again provide a quote. Something tangible. Something I have actually said, not the personal strawmen you have constructed based on my words..
This is intellectual dishonesty. Otherwise Show me some proof.

Do you deny making this statement about understanding god - "No, they are ALL Wrong to one degree or another."? If no, then my statements stands. And if you do, then you are a liar.

like who? Who are these others you keep referencing? Maintream Christianity? What denomination is the mainstream? So me doctrine that points you in the other direction based on the bible.

Catholics - according to you.

I would be too if my reasoning forced me to believe what you do.

Glad we agree that proper reasoning forces a person to regard Christianity as disgusting.

This is a lie. Your exegesis of Romans 3 you did earlier disproves this statement. You did not take what Christianity says about Romans 3 nor did you follow what the context of the passage said at face value. You reinterpreted the passage to suit your argument. This makes you 'stupid' or a hypocrite and a liar. So which is it sport?

To take a position that I don't believe in to prove a point - that makes me a smart debater.

You haven't pointed out a contradiction yet, because you have failed to establish one single instance. You "interpret" what I say and then fabricate a condition to force a contradiction. Again, youre either stupid (your term) or a liar.

You say your god is not omni-benevolent. The other Christians say he is. That is a contradiction.

You've missed a step between 2 and 3. This is exactly what i mean. in your sumation, you leave out information or even fabericate it to make a point. That is why you need to quote any position that is not your own.

What step? I'm quoting my position here - if someone says those things, I accept them as Christians.

your a one horse pony show huh?

Ok, I can work with this. Is my claim supported or unsupported by the bible?

Sure. Those who believe in omnibenevolence disagree with you, though.

You've shown yourself to be a confirmed liar/hypocrite or just plain stupid. (Again your word not mine) I can't take you word here you need to provide a link to what your quoting.

Says the stupid liar. I'll accentuate the next part to highlight its importance.


This isn't the first time you tried to sing this song - you are constantly trying to differentiate between righteousness and morality by claiming that your god has righteousness and man has morality. You tried to do this by appealing to translation conventions, but you were shown to be wrong and it was established in that thread that righteousness is just another word for morality. You continued to push this idea and I told you that I'd be there to prove you wrong everytime you do. And now, you are trying to pretend it never happened by using ad-hom attacks. Go look at your own threads.

And I have conclusively shown that it is not. I have sited historical examples where obedience was deemed immoral. Therefore obedience is not a constant.

In those cases it is an aspect of man's immorality.
Still irrelevant to the point.

according to who?

Logic.

God's Morality is whatever He says it is.

And if what he says changes from time to time, then it isn't constant.

That is why I have said repeatedly that our acts in of themselves hold no intrinsic value. It is why we/Christians do what we do that God looks at not the what. NonChristians are judged by the what you do.

I thought nobody was judged on what they do.

Just because I 'attacked you' does not make it '
Ad-hom. The fact that I cited an example shows my attack was founded in fact and not of emotion.

No, you didn't and using the attack as a counter-argument makes it an ad-hom

My issue is with your use of the term morality. Morality has nothing to do with raping and killing, because again these acts in of themselves hold no moral value. The term your looking for is "God willed/God's will" (for raping and killing.) Again, 'morality' is found in our obedience to God's will, and not in of a given act.

Your god's will is found in the command of the act - therefore, your god's morality is found in his commands. And if your god commands people to rape and kill then your god's morality is one where raping and killing is okay.

Nothing the second horn provides skewers anything. As explained the second horn is only valid if one holds to the idea that a given set of rules is a constant.
Again, the 'rules' in of themselves hold no value to God against one of His followers.

Constancy has nothing to do with validity of the second horn. The second horn shows why your god's morality is vacuous, circular and arbitrary. That is the skewering.

Again compared to what? What pop culture currently deems as acceptable?

Compared to rational morality.

The problem with trying to levy a judgment like you are making is, that you do not have anything solid to stand on. Because nothing God has done/command is any different than what man himself has done.

The morality by which those men committing atrocities acted belongs to the same dung-heap as your god's morality.

The only difference is having the authority to authorize such an act and deem it righteous.

Morality doesn't derive any validity from argument from authority - go check the second horn.

So your saying almost 4000 years after the event described man's 'morality' was better? That's funny, because the active genocide of the plains Indians and African slavery was in full swing.. So when did this 'evolution' occur? 100 years after that during Nazi Germany's rise to power? What about 50 years after that? When we were in the middle of the cold war and bothsides 'morally justified' the complete destruction of the planet several times over? How about we fast forward 20 more years to the coalition of western nations that invaded Iraq and stole it's resources, and stripped those people of their national identity.. Lets do another 10 where Russia and china are gathering power and grabbing land, and rediverting resources to their homelands leaving the indigenous to starve??? Or did you simply mean your particular community who voted yes on gay marriage are the ones who are evolving?

Actually, it started with the age of enlightenment and has been spreadign slowly ever since. The examples you gave are application of dung-heap morality akin to your god's - and in many cases, of your god's.

Can't you see that is the very definition of popular morality i was speaking of? How then can one take a superficial trivial element of pop culture and pretend it is a standard of measure for anything?

I don't subscribe to "popular" morality. It just so happens that some of my tenets are popular.

[Tonus]

Please improve your spelling. Turning on spell-check shouldn't be that hard.

turning it on is not the issue. Getting it to work is.

Even spell-check has given up on you?

[Drich]

Omni benevolence is offered to the followers of Christ, it is the application of Omni benevolence to all of humanity that is wrong. Papal authority is not different than what David koresh has done.
So in the first instance forgiveness can be found because of a simple error, while the other who worship outside of the bible, will be upto God to judge.

Thus proving my point - accepting extra-biblical teachings does not stop you from being a Christian.

Nor does it insure that you are a Christian either. Ultimatly what makes one 'Christian' is whether or not God Judges you saved.

The meaning of the word "allowed" in your statement "you are allowed to understand god however you want" was changed.

Then "Allow" me to return it to the conversation. As Two men in Jesus' parable were 'ALLOWED' To build a house any where they wanted, but ultimatly only the wise man was praised in the end for building his house correctly.

That would not be consistent with the parable of the wise and foolish builder. Again I am not making this stuff up as i go. Christ himself has been recorded in giving this parable that allows for two types of houses being built. One to code and one the way we want. Again God allowed both houses to be built therefore God allows us to seek Him any way we want.

Validation does not come in the building of the house but through the storms that follow.

However, the fact does not change that both of them are building a house - meaning, even if Mormons interpret Christianity differently, they'd still be Christians.

Not Christian, both men are religious. In the end being a Christian is the difference between having a home, and being homeless. Just because a man once owned or built a home does not mean 'life' will not leave him 'homeless' in the end.

The same way a teacher communicates which answers are expected and how the students would be tested and judged - so my statement that ""Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks"." - describes your philosophy pretty accurately.

If you say so. Where I live wrong answers are the ones that get marked.

That's not what you said in your last post. In reference to Christianity you said 'Been there done that.' then proceeded to make your point.

I don't have to be a Christian to evaluate Christianity.

It is the 'Done that" part of your cliche that says you were Christian.

Not true. as you have yet to establish the term 'main stream christianity.'

Fr0d0 did that.

I am not speaking to frodo. I am speaking to you. You need to define your own terms so i can beat you with them later. If you use frodo's terms you have an excuse as to the reason why you should not be beaten with your adopted philosphy.

So, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christians?

Catholics identify themselves as Catholics first. God will determine whether or not they are Christians. Are their doctrines sole sourced in the bible? no.

And i provided links to official websites where the book of doctrine and covenants took precedent. thus invalidating your wiki claim, and if you keep reading I will post a quote from the founder of that religion that further refutes your claim.

And why would those taking precedence stop them from being Christians?

Because they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith first and not Christ. To be 'Christian' one must follow the teachings of Christ first.

Except my understanding is based on the evidence you provided - not your so-say. When I say "your arguments support my claim" I mean the evidence provided within your arguments.

Specifically, you've given evidence through biblical quote that your god is not omni-benevolent - I accept that evidence. Meaning, that particular claim is extra-biblical. But it is also a claim that most Christians believe - therefore, extra-biblical claims are accepted within Christianity.

You misidentified the claim. To be 'Extra-biblical' means to add to what the bible says. Not to correct an assertion based on a 'extra biblical claim.' Example to claim the omni benevolence of God one must source material not found in scripture or they must superimpose meaning onto the text/take it out of context. (eisogesis) This is an extra biblical claim. to correct the claim is not extra biblical because the content of the bible was used to compile the correction. This complation is known as an exegesis. Which is not extra biblical even though it is not found in the bible word for word.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/110-extra-biblical

Then correct that identification.

Mainstream Christianity are those who seek to follow the teaching of Christianity as outlined in scripture, forsaking all extrabiblical teachings, especially concerning the message of attonement and salvation.

Yes

Finally a straight answer - so, what's the basis for this condition?

The bible. The bible is the sole source for biblically based Christianity. If one seeks to worship and be redemeded by the God of the bible then it is to the bible one must turn for instruction for redemption.

Again no. I defined Doctrine. Incase you forgot Doctrine is : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
-Merriam Webster.
There is not one valid principle in the bible that the Mormons hold to if it is not also found in one of their other religious books.

Which makes any share principles just that share principles. Again the bible's only use is that of a recruitment tool for the Mormon church. other wise it is dismissed as being corrupt by the jews.

Whether or not they are shared is irrelevant - if the biblical principles are held, then bible is a doctrine for them.

Not true.
Here is the defination you keep reading past that you must first reconsile for your statement to have any traction: Doctrine:
" principle or position or the body of principles in a system of belief"

Joseph Smith 'doctrine' includes the whole sale dismissle of the bible as anything other than a recruitment tool. According to him "all of it's teachings are corupt." That is why he has invented his own book of doctrine and covenants.

untrue. Joseph Smith Started Mormonism because he thought the bible was far too corrupt to follow.

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327)

Sounds like a true-blue Christian to me - say that you believe in the bible as it was originally written. Admit that it was corrupted by humans over time. Then go on to pick and choose the parts that suit you.

Where did I say that? I have said many times that we are responsiable for all the bible however it is written. If God does not agree with what is written it is on Him to forgive for following a corrupt book, change what is written with a discovery like the dea sea scrolls or perserve the word where it is critical.

[quote='Drich' pid='755358' dateline='1411249910'] You didn't read 'ALL' of Romans 3 did you? If you did you would have not had a need "interpret" who the word 'all' refers to. Verses 9-20 tell us who 'all' is exactly.

9 So are we Jews better than other people? ......
So you see old sport, 'all' Means ALL. That is why when 21-31 refers to all we know ALL does not mean some. Because as verse 20 says None can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows our sin.
This includes the laws that govern not only the moral code buy religious acts. We know this because the original Greek word that is translated into the word 'law' in English is νόμος or transliterated nomos. It means:
I.anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command
of any law whatsoever
A. a law or rule producing a state approved of God
B. by the observance of which is approved of God

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3551&t=KJV

I see, so the "all" here refers to all the sinners and not the whole world.

Because, you see, in 15, 16 and 17, your bible makes specific claims which are demonstrably untrue regarding the whole world.

Oh, I do love it when you guys want to teach from the bible

For proper exegesis to take place we must first identify the subject of the passage being discussed. Verse 9 does this when it identifies both the Jew and the gentile/non-jews. That everyone sport. because in Paul's line of sight there was only Jews and gentiles.

Now we must look for any special qualifiers that would proclude verse nine from applying to verses 15-17.

We find a possiablity in verse 10, as Paul refers to 'scripture.' in that he says "Scriptures say" meaning he is quoting the Old testament here as his writting were not considered to be scripture yet.

Next we look for the context in which Paul quoted. He quotes from psalm 14, Psalm 53, Both here refer to 'Unbelievers.'
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV
Psalms 5:9
refers to evil people/"Those in whom God hates."
Those who are not God's people. Which means everyone who does not carry the attonement offered by Christ. So again when Paul says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God in verse 9 he means the whole world.

How ever if you want to look at who is specifically being targeted in 15, 16, and 17 we can see that in 15 Paul is quoting the passage from Proverbs 1:16
15 My son, don’t follow them. Don’t even take the first step along that path. 16 They run to do something evil, and they cannot wait to kill someone.
17 You cannot trap birds with a net if they see you spreading it out. 18 But evil people cannot see the trap they set for themselves.

Clearly 'evil people' (considering verses 1-18) are those in this world.
Verse

Again in Isaha 59:7 we have the same language used to describe the evil people of Israel. We know this was directed towards the jews because Isaha was not an evangelist. He was a prophet sent to correct and call the jews to repentance.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

So clearly as Paul had intended in verse 9 of Romans 3 when he said 'All" He was refering to God's people as well as those who are not. (He even says as much in verse 9)

Will have to finish the rest in installments.

[genkaus]

Nor does it insure that you are a Christian either. Ultimatly what makes one 'Christian' is whether or not God Judges you saved.

Which means you have no basis to who is a Christian and who isn't - meaning the Mormons and the Davidians might be Christians as well.

Then "Allow" me to return it to the conversation. As Two men in Jesus' parable were 'ALLOWED' To build a house any where they wanted, but ultimatly only the wise man was praised in the end for building his house correctly.

And since, according to you, everyone is wrong to some extent then that means no one is building the house correctly. Meaning neither you nor Fr0d0 would be praised for the way you built your understanding.

Not Christian, both men are religious. In the end being a Christian is the difference between having a home, and being homeless. Just because a man once owned or built a home does not mean 'life' will not leave him 'homeless' in the end.

You got any evidence of their "homelessness"?

If you say so. Where I live wrong answers are the ones that get marked.

What do you mean? Are you saying that your teacher gave you marks for wrong answers? That would explain your poor language skills.

It is the 'Done that" part of your cliche that says you were Christian.

Only if you apply the cliche literally - which would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

I am not speaking to frodo. I am speaking to you. You need to define your own terms so i can beat you with them later. If you use frodo's terms you have an excuse as to the reason why you should not be beaten with your adopted philosphy.

Other than my stated position about who I consider to be Christian, I have no "adopted" philosophy about what constitutes Christianity. Unless contraindicated by evidence or argument, I'll accept a Christian's terms regarding membership to their club.

In this case regarding what constitutes "mainstream Christianity", I accept Fr0d0's definition and the arguments he provided for them - feel free to prove it wrong and I'll change my position if and when you do.

Catholics identify themselves as Catholics first. God will determine whether or not they are Christians. Are their doctrines sole sourced in the bible? no.

So, if you can't determine whether Catholics are Christians, why do you make the same determination for Mormons?

Because they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith first and not Christ. To be 'Christian' one must follow the teachings of Christ first.

That's not what they say. According to what I read about them, they say that they do follow the teachings of Christ first - it just so happens that bible was corrupted over centuries and it, therefore, does not accurately teachings of Christ and the real teaching had to be re-iterated via Joseph Smith.

You misidentified the claim. To be 'Extra-biblical' means to add to what the bible says. Not to correct an assertion based on a 'extra biblical claim.' Example to claim the omni benevolence of God one must source material not found in scripture or they must superimpose meaning onto the text/take it out of context. (eisogesis) This is an extra biblical claim. to correct the claim is not extra biblical because the content of the bible was used to compile the correction. This complation is known as an exegesis. Which is not extra biblical even though it is not found in the bible word for word.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/110-extra-biblical

The apologetics index is not a dictionary I refer to. When I say extra-biblical, I mean "Pertaining to information or content outside the Bible". That's it.

You say omni-benevolence is not found in the bible and provide quotes to contrary - I accept that and am content to regard that claim as extra-biblical. However, Christians believe in that claim and are still considered Christians, which means going extra-biblical is not a limitation.

You say Mormons believe some stuff not found in the bible - I accept that as well. But since going extra-biblical is not a limitation, I consider them Christians because the rest of the stuff they believe in does come from the bible.

Mainstream Christianity are those who seek to follow the teaching of Christianity as outlined in scripture, forsaking all extrabiblical teachings, especially concerning the message of attonement and salvation.

Very good - now that you've provided the definition, support it with evidence. Specifically, mainstream means "the common current thought of the majority" - so, in order to establish your definition as the correct representation of mainstream Christianity, you have to show that the majority of those who call themselves Christians fit this definition.

And while you do that, keep in mind your repeated insistence on how you don't subscribe to the god of pop-culture Christianity. Given that mainstream means what is accepted by popular culture, then that automatically means you are not a part of mainstream Christianity. And if your definition is correct, then that means you don't "seek to follow the teaching of Christianity as outlined in scripture, forsaking all extrabiblical teachings, especially concerning the message of attonement and salvation".

This should be interesting.

The bible. The bible is the sole source for biblically based Christianity. If one seeks to worship and be redemeded by the God of the bible then it is to the bible one must turn for instruction for redemption.

That is your assertion. Now, what is the basis for this assertion? Because there is a big difference between being the source and being the sole source.

Not true.
Here is the defination you keep reading past that you must first reconsile for your statement to have any traction: Doctrine:
" principle or position or the body of principles in a system of belief"

Joseph Smith 'doctrine' includes the whole sale dismissle of the bible as anything other than a recruitment tool. According to him "all of it's teachings are corupt." That is why he has invented his own book of doctrine and covenants.

Except, its not dismissal of the bible so much as its reinterpretation. His book of doctrine and covenant - according to him - was based on the bible - the "correct" and "uncorrupted" parts.

Where did I say that? I have said many times that we are responsiable for all the bible however it is written. If God does not agree with what is written it is on Him to forgive for following a corrupt book, change what is written with a discovery like the dea sea scrolls or perserve the word where it is critical.

And that is precisely what Smith says happened. Christian all the way.

Oh, I do love it when you guys want to teach from the bible

"Teach"? No thanks.

For proper exegesis to take place we must first identify the subject of the passage being discussed.

Proper exegesis? Meaning "interpretation of a text"? But I thought you didn't "interpret" the bible.

So clearly as Paul had intended in verse 9 of Romans 3 when he said 'All" He was refering to God's people as well as those who are not. (He even says as much in verse 9)

In which case he'd be wrong.

According to your interpretation - the one you gave here - "all" simultaneously refers to everyone in the world and people who "run to do evil and cannot wait to kill someone". Which simply isn't true.