General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

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

Examples are indeed required if your 'claiming' ALL my statements are wrong. Otherwise know your claim will be dismissed as a Non sequitur. If GM makes a million cars and 2% of them are defective, it does not mean all are defective. If you believe you have found a defective claim that I myself have not already flagged as being not biblically based, then you might have a case to argue. But, just to say because I am willing to admit i am not perfect, that everything I have said is flawed in some major way, is fallicious and weak minded reasoning.
Which is par for the course so far, and why I will just move to dismiss rather than argue further.

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

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

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.

why?

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".

again why?

I have only made the statement that to worship God incorrectly is a sin. just one example establishes that it is indeed a sin to worship God incorrectly, you now have 5. The statement I made does not include the prerequsits you are trying to impose to save face.

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

If you are too lazy to support your words then maybe you shouldnot use them. I will only be responding to things you can establish after this post. You have proven yourself to be intelectually lazy and dishonest. You are also prone to moving the goal post, and a bulder of straw men when you think you can get away with it. That is why I am asking you to back your claims as I do if you wish to continue this conversation.

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.

Your statement fails because it is based in logical fallacy. (Non sequitur ) being wrong to a degree does not make one wrong as a whole.

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.

Again catholics identify themselves as catholic first. Catholics are the first to claim that they are catholic. None of them will claim to adhear only to scripture. Mainstream 'Christianity' are those who follow the teachings of Christ to the exclusion of all others. (This includes the pope) That is what makes them Christian. Catholics follow the pope to the exclusion of all others.

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.

To take a position you do not believe in and repersent it as it was your own, by defination makes you a hypocrite. There is nothing honorable nor smart about that. It creates mistrust and cause the people who youre speaking with to doubt you. This kind of thing is exactly why I am asking you to provide proof on any assertions you make. I am not just calling you names to be mean. These lables (Hypocrite, liar) accuratly describe your actions in this conversation.

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.

Have I contradicted anything that I have said?

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.

Then meet me in the middle here. use a small letter 'c' when describing a religious label anyone places on themselves concerning Christanity.

Use a Large 'C' when describing the content or context of those in whom God identifies as Christian.

I have no issue conceeding that there are those who claim Christianity and want to call themselves that. In Mat 7 Christ clearly states not everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ will he acknoweledge as a follower of Christ.

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

Not concerning biblical Christianity. Fore their isn't a basis in which to scripturally disagree. Which is the deciding factor on all matters concerning biblical doctrine.

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.

Indeed

You tried to do this by appealing to translation conventions,

Show me where I've done this. I know for a fact that I have never quoted a convention because I am not apart of a denomination that observes any. again another appeal to a lie to desperatly make a point.
when will you get that your strawmen will be knocked down and not answered?

but you were shown to be wrong and it was established in that thread that righteousness is just another word for morality.

Not in dispute sport. I have conceeded on many occasions that righteousness is another word for morality. What is being discussed in those threads is that God holds to another form of 'morality/righteousness' as man does. I use the term righeousness because God's 'morality' is attributed/described as absolute righteousness in several places. while what we describe as morality changes from culture to culture and generation to generation.

There is much confusion, and many arguements arise because people like you do not understand that what they understand to be moral God sees as dirty rags. Because God is not observing and judging the acts themselves, but the condition of our hearts in relation to His word.
To call both standards 'morality' is foolishness.

What word in our language can be used to mean one thing and the exact oppsite and not cause confusion? Especially when people like you are not even aware that it can mean anything other than what you think it currently means?

When compareing God's morality to ours their is an indisputiable difference outlined in Scripture. That difference once people have been made aware, needs to be classified as something other than what secular man has adopted as guideline for right and wrong. Hence Man's Morality and God's Righteousness.

Again the term morality was assigned to man because even secular man believes himself to be moral it is a term soceity has adopted to describe soceitaly correct behavior. This standard is subject to change with popular culture. Then we have God's Righteousness. I use the term Righteousness to describe God's morality because the bible attributes his morality as absolute unchanging righteousness.

One more time. Man's morality (MM) is a different standard apart from God's Righteousness (GR) because MM is ALWAYS a judgement of deeds. (Which is generally the lessor of two evils) GR has nothing to do with this standard. GR is a standard based on the condition of the heart in relation to deeds.
This means to judge God immoral is really pointless, as deeds hold no value in His economy.

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

There is no need for what if. The question is has it ever changed? God's righteousness remains the same. (Remember GR has nothing to do with deeds.) so your 'what if' goes out the window.

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.

I never said 'nobody.' I said 'we' as in Christianity. Sheep and goats, Wheat and weeds, wheat and chaff. there is always been a seperation in humanity.

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 -

Exactly In the Command of an act, not the act itself.
Therefore the act hold no 'moral' value with God.

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.

when it is ok, and not when it is not. So what? Again we both agree the acts hold no value, it is the command. Here is another example for the need to distinguish the difference between MM and GR. because you are trying to build an arguement using MM, when in GR it is a non issue because the acts commanded are netural by nature. it is the command that assigns them a 'moral' value.

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.

Consistancy has EVERYTHING to do with ANY Judgement. Because if the standard you are using is not solid then the judgement itself then becomes questionable. There is a reason Eupth's arguements has been pushed aside for other supposed paradoxial arguements.

Compared to rational morality.

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

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

Demonstrate this assertion.

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

can't the second horn fails to explain anything unless you suppose man's morality is an absolute standard. I have shown many times that it is not.

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.

My example have shape the landscape and defined the boarders of the current nations of the world. Meaning they are the direct result of the soceities in which hypocritically deemed an 'age of enlightment.' Because how can one claim enlightenment in the same time span that their soceity was committing these very acts?

Your evolution of morality is a fantasy cooked up to cover the perfered behavior of man. It so people like you can sleep at night given all the horrid things that happen to all the other people in the world so you and your community can be counted as the top 10% who have ever lived.

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

If your morals are not anchored in a standard of morality drived from a source other than what soceity tells you is right and wrong, then your morals are indeed tied to popular culture.

[Drich]

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.

I have the bible
Which is why I clearly have made the distinction between Biblically based Christianity and all other forms of it.
Again you can call yourself christian 'small c' all you want. It means nothing.

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.

Again right or wrong is not determined in the building process, as both men were allowed to build where ever and whatever they wanted. To build correctly is to build on the foundation Jesus Christ Identifies as the Rock. This Rock is only described in the bible.

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"?

Indeed
I've posted it a couple times in this thread already. Here it is again:
1 cor 3
And you are a house that belongs to God. 10 Like an expert builder I built the foundation of that house. I used the gift that God gave me to do this. Other people are building on that foundation. But everyone should be careful how they build. 11 The foundation that has already been built is Jesus Christ, and no one can build any other foundation. 12 People can build on that foundation using gold, silver, jewels, wood, grass, or straw. 13 But the work that each person does will be clearly seen, because the Day will make it plain. That Day will appear with fire, and the fire will test everyone’s work. 14 If the building they put on the foundation still stands, they will get their reward. 15 But if their building is burned up, they will suffer loss. They will be saved, but it will be like someone escaping from a fire.

16 You should know that you yourselves are God’s temple.[a] God’s Spirit lives in you. 17 If you destroy God’s temple, God will destroy you, because God’s temple is holy. You yourselves are God’s temple.

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.

Here we mark answers wrong. we do not mark them correct.

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.

Been there done that refer to an old mountain dew commercial. To have been there done that is to have expereinced a place and a given activity. To say you have been there done that about christianity means you were a Christian.

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.

Which is fine so long as we are speaking of 'c'hristianity.

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.

Then cut and paste frodo's answer. I do not read anything addressed to someone else.

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

Because the bible is apart of their worship. How much will be judged on a person by person basis by God. Mormons only use the bible as a recruitment tool. Their leading 'prophet' idntified the bible as being corrupt and not good source for doctrine.

That's not what they say.

Then provide a link. You have been confirmed as untrust worthy.

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.

Then if true this means they are not bible based Christians are they? I am only speaking to bible based Christians and have done from the start. These are Joseph smith based christians, and build their christianity on a foundation joseph smith has laid.

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.

then provide a link to the dictionary you sourced this defination. The term Extrabiblical is a appologetic term by nature, if your using it in your own special way (making up crap as you go in order to save face) then our conversations will be cut shorter and shorter as I am not here to try and chase your personal definations down.

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.

again not a valid arguement as your defination for the term 'extra biblical' is based on something you just made up.

Your strawmen will not be answered sport, just identified and dismissed.

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.

It's very simple. a Christian (Large C denoting Someone Identified and recognised by God.) Is the one in 1 cor 3 who has built his house on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Who is Tested by Christ's water, and by Paul's fire. (The water completely washes away the indivisual/not saved and the fire consumes all the works leaving the person in Heaven as if he were homeless/saved) the small 'c'christian is one who builds his house/faith on someone elses interpretation of who Jesus is, and is washed away. The Large 'C'Hristian is one who may enter Heaven with nothing to enter Heaven to great reward.

And while you do that, keep in mind your repeated insistence on how you don't subscribe to the god of pop-culture Christianity.

Done

Given that mainstream means what is accepted by popular culture, then that automatically means you are not a part of mainstream Christianity.

Ah, no. Mainstream and popular culture have nothing to do with each other. Because what is popular in the culture may not have anything to do with what is mainstream.

In this instance, specifically biblical Christians may not be the largest group who identifythemselves as christian, but they are indeed the vast majority who have been identified as Christian by God.

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.

you like eupth's second horn fails before the most basic understanding of God.

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.

... No other source claims to be a direct teaching of Christ. therefore sole source. The gospels were written by eye witness to Christ/Apstoles or by scribes who wrote for the apstole. First person second person experience

Even the book of mormon does not claim to be a direct teaching of Christ. The revelation taught in mormonism was derived from special gold plates that only joseph smith could feel and see, and was translated by an angel one letter at a time when he looked into a hat.

Orgin of invisiable gold plates aside, the transcriber of the plate was not one of the orginal twelve diciples as they did not have access to the amount of gold needed to compile the book of mormon, the book of doctrine and covenants, and the 'pearl of great price.' All of which contain 'the third testament.' so that means the orginator was the first person, then you have joseph smith who was calling out these books one letter at a time, then you have the 'angel' who was giving the translation, finally you have the publisher who is writting it all down. we are at least 5 people removed. two of which are not identifiable. The orginal author and the guy who transcribed them onto "gold plates."

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.

uh, no. Read his quote again. 'The bible as we have it is completely corrupt.' then he lists how it has been corrupted. The book of doctrine and covenants is a third testament which means he intended it to replace the 'new testament' as people in his day thought the new testament superceeded the old.

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.

not at all. Jospeh Smith said that becuse the corruption ran so deep in Judaism and Christianty He send a special breed of white jew across asia across the land bridge between what is now russia and alaska, down the west coast into his home town, and burried these invisiable plates to keep them safe from the 'red man', and shortly there after the 'savages' wiped out the whole colony.

How does this differ from the dead sea scrolls? well primarly we have the actual scrolls. Many have examined them and studied them. We know them to be several hundred years older than anything else we had up to that point. Not only that aside from a few gramatical errors the bible stands as it did before the discovery.

With joey's imaginary one can not claim the perservation of God's word because the source material does not exist.

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

I never said that. another straw man. I said the message I presented to you was directly from scripture. that particular message was.

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.

So Paul a Pharisee/Rabbi/Teacher of the Law does not know how to rightly divid Jewish scripture?

Your an Idiot.
How much pride does it take to assume that the bible is wrong about it self while you (can admit to not knowing much about it) remain right?

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.

Can you name one person who has not ever hated another?

According to Christ to hate another is the same as Killing them.

[Mudhammam]

According to Christ to hate another is the same as Killing them.

What a dumb ass.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I’m just now jumping into this thread having only skimmed previous comments. Please forgive me for missing some of the previous subtleties. However, the questions and the order of their presentations give me the opportunity to present my interpretation of Swedenborg’s theology. As background please not that I consider the writings of Swedenborg the high point of a long philosophical tradition that builds on the ground laid by Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinas and many others.

How do you see God's love or that God is love? It all starts with my conception of God, as the All of Plotinus. Building on this Swedenborg identifies two distinct but inalienable aspects of the Lord: Divine Love (which corresponds with Primal Matter) and Divine Wisdom (which corresponds with Ideal Form). The Divine Love of which Swedenborg speaks seems to align with Plotinus’s idea of divine emanation. Divine Love is that out of which all particular things are made. I believe that in contemporary theological nomenclature this would align with panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism). Thus love is a creative force, the propensity to be.

According to you, is God's love conceived as conditional or unconditional? If it is unconditional, how can one ever divorce themselves from it? From the above it is clear that God’s love, being the basis for all that is, even to the most fundamental features of reality, nothing can be alienable from God’s love.

Does God continue to love those for whom he has reserved hell? Yes, because of his love God never removes from us those attributes by which we are human: the capacity for reason and freedom of choice. The spirits of hell pervert there humanity and become devils and demons. Because evil spirits only spread lies and intend evil, ministering spirits from Heaven keep them from destroying themselves. (All this can be found in Swedenborg’s book ‘Heaven & Hell’)

If God is omnipresent, in what sense is it logical to speak of the absence of his presence in hell? He is never absent, the wicked on earth and the evil spirits in hell turn away from it and do not let themselves receive his love or recognize his truth.

If God is immutable, how can any love he possesses for us ever [i]change into wrath? [/i]Aquinas believes that God is all actuality and hence immutable. I say only the ideal forms are immutable, which are in God’s Divine Wisdom. On the other hand, God’s Divine Love is pure potential and thus manifests God’s Wisdom in response to actions of free agents

[genkaus]

Examples are indeed required if your 'claiming' ALL my statements are wrong. Otherwise know your claim will be dismissed as a Non sequitur. If GM makes a million cars and 2% of them are defective, it does not mean all are defective. If you believe you have found a defective claim that I myself have not already flagged as being not biblically based, then you might have a case to argue. But, just to say because I am willing to admit i am not perfect, that everything I have said is flawed in some major way, is fallicious and weak minded reasoning.
Which is par for the course so far, and why I will just move to dismiss rather than argue further.

I'm not claiming that ALL of your statements are wrong, I'm saying that since you admit SOME of your statements are wrong and you have no way of saying which ones, ALL of your statements are untrustworthy. This statement is exemplified in this story:

A watermelon farmer was determined to scare off the local kids who went into his watermelon patch every night to eat their fill.

After some thought, he made a sign that read, "WARNING! ONE OF THESE WATERMELONS HAS BEEN INJECTED WITH CYANIDE!"

He smiled smugly as he watched the kids run off the next night without eating any of his melons.

A week later, the farmer was surveying his field. To his satisfaction, no watermelons were missing, but a sign next to his read, "NOW THERE ARE TWO!"

If GM says 2% of its cars are defective and won't say which 2%, then I'm not driving any of its cars. And if you admit some of your claims are wrong but won't say which ones or how or why, I'm not buying any of your claims.

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

Should I have to?

again why?

I have only made the statement that to worship God incorrectly is a sin. just one example establishes that it is indeed a sin to worship God incorrectly, you now have 5. The statement I made does not include the prerequsits you are trying to impose to save face.

What you are actually saying is "The Bible says worshiping god incorrectly is a sin". No "as I understand it". No "according to my interpretation". And you made this statement within the context of discussing how your god should be worshiped.

So, in order to establish that "The Bible says worshiping god incorrectly is a sin", you either have to find a quote that can be literally translated to that or you need to meet my conditions.

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

If you are too lazy to support your words then maybe you shouldnot use them. I will only be responding to things you can establish after this post. You have proven yourself to be intelectually lazy and dishonest. You are also prone to moving the goal post, and a bulder of straw men when you think you can get away with it. That is why I am asking you to back your claims as I do if you wish to continue this conversation.

I'm simply bored of quoting your dishonest and stupid statements only for you to pretend that I haven't.

Your statement fails because it is based in logical fallacy. (Non sequitur ) being wrong to a degree does not make one wrong as a whole.

If you won't say which part is wrong, then it makes the whole unreliable - which is my actual argument.

Again catholics identify themselves as catholic first. Catholics are the first to claim that they are catholic. None of them will claim to adhear only to scripture. Mainstream 'Christianity' are those who follow the teachings of Christ to the exclusion of all others. (This includes the pope) That is what makes them Christian. Catholics follow the pope to the exclusion of all others.

Catholics disagree - they identify themselves as Christians.

To take a position you do not believe in and repersent it as it was your own, by defination makes you a hypocrite.

That is the exact opposite of the definition of a hypocrite. A hypocrite believes in a position he does not take. I'm temporarily assuming a position that I've been clear about not believing in.

Have I contradicted anything that I have said?

You have - when it comes to your god's morality. But this section is about contradictions among Christians.

Then meet me in the middle here. use a small letter 'c' when describing a religious label anyone places on themselves concerning Christanity.

Use a Large 'C' when describing the content or context of those in whom God identifies as Christian.

I have no issue conceeding that there are those who claim Christianity and want to call themselves that. In Mat 7 Christ clearly states not everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ will he acknoweledge as a follower of Christ.

Since I don't believe your god exists, there would be no one left to refer by a capital 'C'. However, rules of capitalization dictate that I capitalize the first letter of a religious group - so I'll continue to regard all whom I consider Christians as "C"hristians.

Not concerning biblical Christianity. Fore their isn't a basis in which to scripturally disagree. Which is the deciding factor on all matters concerning biblical doctrine.

"Biblical" Christianity? As opposed to mainstream Christianity?

Show me where I've done this. I know for a fact that I have never quoted a convention because I am not apart of a denomination that observes any. again another appeal to a lie to desperatly make a point.
when will you get that your strawmen will be knocked down and not answered?

Do you deny appealing to translation from of Koine Greek for "proper" exegesis? If no, then that is a translation convention.

I have conceeded on many occasions that righteousness is another word for morality.

Have you conceded? Because you made a post treating the two as different today.

What is being discussed in those threads is that God holds to another form of 'morality/righteousness' as man does.

And his moral standard is okay with raping, pillaging and killing.

I use the term righeousness because God's 'morality' is attributed/described as absolute righteousness in several places. while what we describe as morality changes from culture to culture and generation to generation.

Even if your god's morality is described as absolute, it is still morality - no need to use a separate word for it. Just add "god's" in front of it - it'll still be shorter than righteousness and you won't constantly mispell it.

There is much confusion, and many arguements arise because people like you do not understand that what they understand to be moral God sees as dirty rags. Because God is not observing and judging the acts themselves, but the condition of our hearts in relation to His word.

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

To call both standards 'morality' is foolishness.

No, to call them both 'morality' is accurate because they are both moral standards - just different ones. We got the better deal.

What word in our language can be used to mean one thing and the exact oppsite and not cause confusion? Especially when people like you are not even aware that it can mean anything other than what you think it currently means?

It does not mean the exact opposite. And I'm very aware of what it means. Both are standards and guidelines of behavior, thought and action.

When compareing God's morality to ours their is an indisputiable difference outlined in Scripture. That difference once people have been made aware, needs to be classified as something other than what secular man has adopted as guideline for right and wrong. Hence Man's Morality and God's Righteousness.

No, man's morality and god's morality.

Again the term morality was assigned to man because even secular man believes himself to be moral it is a term soceity has adopted to describe soceitaly correct behavior.

Wrong.

This standard is subject to change with popular culture.

Wrong.

One more time. Man's morality (MM) is a different standard apart from God's Righteousness (GR) because MM is ALWAYS a judgement of deeds. (Which is generally the lessor of two evils) GR has nothing to do with this standard. GR is a standard based on the condition of the heart in relation to deeds.
This means to judge God immoral is really pointless, as deeds hold no value in His economy.

So, basically, you say that you concede that righteousness is another word for morality, but you'll continue to treat them as separate because it suits your preconceived theology to do so.

So, one more time: Morality refers to any standard of thought, action or behavior. Whether it changes over time is irrelevant. Whether it is authoritarian or democratic is irrelevant. There is no such thing as "Man's Morality" because humanity as a whole does not adhere to the same standard. There are different moralities from different sources. Any action or thought by any conscious agent is subject to judgment. Things in accordance are deemed moral and things contravening it are deemed immoral. And by the standards of secular morality, your god is extremely immoral. By the standards of rational morality, your god is worse than immoral. And since your hypothetical god's hypothetical actions dictate the actions of very real people, then those people are likewise immoral. Secular morality, however, is not subject to your god's morality because your god doesn't exist.

There is no need for what if. The question is has it ever changed? God's righteousness remains the same. (Remember GR has nothing to do with deeds.) so your 'what if' goes out the window.

If your god's morality has remained the same then raping and killing is still moral according to it.

I never said 'nobody.' I said 'we' as in Christianity. Sheep and goats, Wheat and weeds, wheat and chaff. there is always been a seperation in humanity.

So, different standards for different groups - your god's morality becomes more and more despicable by the second.

Exactly In the Command of an act, not the act itself.
Therefore the act hold no 'moral' value with God.

"With" god? Who the fuck cares about that?

when it is ok, and not when it is not. So what? Again we both agree the acts hold no value, it is the command. Here is another example for the need to distinguish the difference between MM and GR. because you are trying to build an arguement using MM, when in GR it is a non issue because the acts commanded are netural by nature. it is the command that assigns them a 'moral' value.

Yup - the good old special pleading. Your god's commands are evidence of his moral character - he is not exempt from moral judgment. And the judgment is very, very bad.

Consistancy has EVERYTHING to do with ANY Judgement. Because if the standard you are using is not solid then the judgement itself then becomes questionable. There is a reason Eupth's arguements has been pushed aside for other supposed paradoxial arguements.

The standard used here is much more solid than your god's arbitrary whims - it is based on logic. The source of the rules has to be constant - the rules themselves should change according to facts.

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

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

Demonstrate this assertion.

Both moralities are authoritarian, irrational and sanction atrocities like raping and genocide.

can't the second horn fails to explain anything unless you suppose man's morality is an absolute standard. I have shown many times that it is not.

Wrong - the second horn of the dilemma is used to evaluate a moral system. It does not derive its validity from any morality. The "absoluteness" of man's morality - in fact, man's morality itself (if such a thing exists) is irrelevant to Euthyphro's reasoning.

My example have shape the landscape and defined the boarders of the current nations of the world. Meaning they are the direct result of the soceities in which hypocritically deemed an 'age of enlightment.' Because how can one claim enlightenment in the same time span that their soceity was committing these very acts?

Because it wasn't the only active - or even predominant - event in play. Your god's dung-heap morality was still in full swing.

Your evolution of morality is a fantasy cooked up to cover the perfered behavior of man. It so people like you can sleep at night given all the horrid things that happen to all the other people in the world so you and your community can be counted as the top 10% who have ever lived.

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

If your morals are not anchored in a standard of morality drived from a source other than what soceity tells you is right and wrong, then your morals are indeed tied to popular culture.

Good thing they are not.

[genkaus]

I have the bible
Which is why I clearly have made the distinction between Biblically based Christianity and all other forms of it.

But not between Christianity and non-Christianity.

Again you can call yourself christian 'small c' all you want. It means nothing.

On the contrary - it is the only classification that means anything.

Again right or wrong is not determined in the building process, as both men were allowed to build where ever and whatever they wanted. To build correctly is to build on the foundation Jesus Christ Identifies as the Rock. This Rock is only described in the bible.

Choosing a foundation is part of the process- which means right or wrong is determined by the building process.

Indeed
I've posted it a couple times in this thread already. Here it is again:
1 cor 3
And you are a house that belongs to God. 10 Like an expert builder I built the foundation of that house. I used the gift that God gave me to do this. Other people are building on that foundation. But everyone should be careful how they build. 11 The foundation that has already been built is Jesus Christ, and no one can build any other foundation. 12 People can build on that foundation using gold, silver, jewels, wood, grass, or straw. 13 But the work that each person does will be clearly seen, because the Day will make it plain. That Day will appear with fire, and the fire will test everyone’s work. 14 If the building they put on the foundation still stands, they will get their reward. 15 But if their building is burned up, they will suffer loss. They will be saved, but it will be like someone escaping from a fire.

16 You should know that you yourselves are God’s temple.[a] God’s Spirit lives in you. 17 If you destroy God’s temple, God will destroy you, because God’s temple is holy. You yourselves are God’s temple.

Sounds like evidence disproving their homelessness - they claim to have built upon the foundation of your Christ - just their process for the rest is different. Instead of referring to the bible, they refer to something else. And since you have not established that their house has fallen, you have no basis to consider them non-Christians.

Here we mark answers wrong. we do not mark them correct.

And wrong answers are not given any points. So, would Fr0d0 get any points given his 'flawed' understanding of your god?

Been there done that refer to an old mountain dew commercial. To have been there done that is to have expereinced a place and a given activity. To say you have been there done that about christianity means you were a Christian.

I didn't say "been there, done that" about Christianity - I said it about "making an honest effort to determine the truth". You don't have to be a Christian to determine the truth about Christianity.

Which is fine so long as we are speaking of 'c'hristianity.

We are always only speaking of 'C'hristianity.

Then cut and paste frodo's answer. I do not read anything addressed to someone else.

"The mainstream Christian churches do talk together and so reach consensus on what constitutes mainstream Christianity. The core component is adherence to the Nicene creed (a particular iteration).

It is by this kind of deliberation that Christians will consider if others can be called partners in Christ. There's a line of non acceptance, and a huge variety of denominational differences incorporated into the mainstream."

Because the bible is apart of their worship. How much will be judged on a person by person basis by God. Mormons only use the bible as a recruitment tool. Their leading 'prophet' idntified the bible as being corrupt and not good source for doctrine.

Not according to them - they say that bible is a part of their worship. Just not the corrupted parts.

Then provide a link.

https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

Then if true this means they are not bible based Christians are they? I am only speaking to bible based Christians and have done from the start. These are Joseph smith based christians, and build their christianity on a foundation joseph smith has laid.

And why have you been speaking only of "biblical Christians"? I didn't ask about "biblical Christians". My questions were regarding Christians. FYI, the foundation they claim is Jesus Christ - its just the question of where they get the foundation. You say you get it only from the bible, they say they get from the bible and Joseph Smith.

Then provide a link to the dictionary you sourced this defination.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extra-Biblical

again not a valid arguement as your defination for the term 'extra biblical' is based on something you just made up.

Liar.

It's very simple. a Christian (Large C denoting Someone Identified and recognised by God.) Is the one in 1 cor 3 who has built his house on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Who is Tested by Christ's water, and by Paul's fire. (The water completely washes away the indivisual/not saved and the fire consumes all the works leaving the person in Heaven as if he were homeless/saved) the small 'c'christian is one who builds his house/faith on someone elses interpretation of who Jesus is, and is washed away. The Large 'C'Hristian is one who may enter Heaven with nothing to enter Heaven to great reward.

Given that there hasn't been any confirmed identification or recognition by your hypothetical god, your usage of Christian becomes meaningless. Given that 1 cor 3 only establishes that "foundation" is to be laid by your Christ and doesn't establish which iteration or interpretation is correct (other than a test the results of which we are not privy to), you have no basis to claim that any of the interpretations given by others is incorrect. And finally, the definition you gave was about Mainstream Christianity - not who your hypothetical god would like.

Done

So you realize that you are not a mainstream Christian.

Ah, no. Mainstream and popular culture have nothing to do with each other. Because what is popular in the culture may not have anything to do with what is mainstream.

The depths of your ignorance never cease to amaze me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

"Mainstream is the common current thought of the majority. It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media."

In this instance, specifically biblical Christians may not be the largest group who identifythemselves as christian, but they are indeed the vast majority who have been identified as Christian by God.

If they are not the largest group then they are not the majority. And if they are not majority then they are not mainstream. And there is no evidence your god exists, much less he has done any statistical identification.

... No other source claims to be a direct teaching of Christ. therefore sole source. The gospels were written by eye witness to Christ/Apstoles or by scribes who wrote for the apstole. First person second person experience

Even the book of mormon does not claim to be a direct teaching of Christ. The revelation taught in mormonism was derived from special gold plates that only joseph smith could feel and see, and was translated by an angel one letter at a time when he looked into a hat.

Orgin of invisiable gold plates aside, the transcriber of the plate was not one of the orginal twelve diciples as they did not have access to the amount of gold needed to compile the book of mormon, the book of doctrine and covenants, and the 'pearl of great price.' All of which contain 'the third testament.' so that means the orginator was the first person, then you have joseph smith who was calling out these books one letter at a time, then you have the 'angel' who was giving the translation, finally you have the publisher who is writting it all down. we are at least 5 people removed. two of which are not identifiable. The orginal author and the guy who transcribed them onto "gold plates."

A lot of sources "claim" to be the direct teachings of Christ. As a matter of fact, that is all your bible does as well - claims to be the direct teaching of Christ.

uh, no. Read his quote again. 'The bible as we have it is completely corrupt.' then he lists how it has been corrupted. The book of doctrine and covenants is a third testament which means he intended it to replace the 'new testament' as people in his day thought the new testament superceeded the old.

What quote? That 'The bible as we have it is completely corrupt'. But that is not what Smith said. That is your interpretation. His actual quote was about how it has been corrupted, not that it was completely corrupt. And since the corruption only applies to current bible and not the original, your argument falls flat.

not at all. Jospeh Smith said that becuse the corruption ran so deep in Judaism and Christianty He send a special breed of white jew across asia across the land bridge between what is now russia and alaska, down the west coast into his home town, and burried these invisiable plates to keep them safe from the 'red man', and shortly there after the 'savages' wiped out the whole colony.

How does this differ from the dead sea scrolls? well primarly we have the actual scrolls. Many have examined them and studied them. We know them to be several hundred years older than anything else we had up to that point. Not only that aside from a few gramatical errors the bible stands as it did before the discovery.

With joey's imaginary one can not claim the perservation of God's word because the source material does not exist.

Given the absence of any actual evidence that those scrolls were from god, as far as claims go, those two are on equal footing.

I never said that. another straw man. I said the message I presented to you was directly from scripture. that particular message was.

And since it was presented via exegesis, it wasn't directly from the scripture.

So Paul a Pharisee/Rabbi/Teacher of the Law does not know how to rightly divid Jewish scripture?

He is wrong in his observations regarding humanity - I said nothing of scriptural division.

Your an Idiot.

Still smarter than you.

How much pride does it take to assume that the bible is wrong about it self while you (can admit to not knowing much about it) remain right?

Not much. Identifying where a simple statement does not match reality is not a significant achievement. But it is, apparently, beyond you.

Can you name one person who has not ever hated another?

According to Christ to hate another is the same as Killing them.

The your Christ was wrong as well - hating someone is not the same as killing them. Otherwise, you'd be dead.

[Drich]

I'm not claiming that ALL of your statements are wrong, I'm saying that since you admit SOME of your statements are wrong and you have no way of saying which ones, ALL of your statements are untrustworthy. This statement is exemplified in this story:

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

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

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

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

And if you admit some of your claims are wrong but won't say which ones or how or why, I'm not buying any of your claims.

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

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

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

Should I have to?

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

again why?

I have only made the statement that to worship God incorrectly is a sin. just one example establishes that it is indeed a sin to worship God incorrectly, you now have 5. The statement I made does not include the prerequsits you are trying to impose to save face.

What you are actually saying is "The Bible says worshiping god incorrectly is a sin". No "as I understand it". No "according to my interpretation". And you made this statement within the context of discussing how your god should be worshiped.

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

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

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

Again catholics identify themselves as catholic first. Catholics are the first to claim that they are catholic. None of them will claim to adhear only to scripture. Mainstream 'Christianity' are those who follow the teachings of Christ to the exclusion of all others. (This includes the pope) That is what makes them Christian. Catholics follow the pope to the exclusion of all others.

Catholics disagree - they identify themselves as Christians.

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

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

Since I don't believe your god exists, there would be no one left to refer by a capital 'C'. However, rules of capitalization dictate that I capitalize the first letter of a religious group - so I'll continue to regard all whom I consider Christians as "C"hristians.

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

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

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

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

Not concerning biblical Christianity. Fore their isn't a basis in which to scripturally disagree. Which is the deciding factor on all matters concerning biblical doctrine.

"Biblical" Christianity? As opposed to mainstream Christianity?

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

Show me where I've done this. I know for a fact that I have never quoted a convention because I am not apart of a denomination that observes any. again another appeal to a lie to desperatly make a point.
when will you get that your strawmen will be knocked down and not answered?

Do you deny appealing to translation from of Koine Greek for "proper" exegesis? If no, then that is a translation convention.

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

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

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

What is being discussed in those threads is that God holds to another form of 'morality/righteousness' as man does.

And his moral standard is okay with raping, pillaging and killing.

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

Even if your god's morality is described as absolute, it is still morality - no need to use a separate word for it. Just add "god's" in front of it - it'll still be shorter than righteousness and you won't constantly mispell it.

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

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

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

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

What word in our language can be used to mean one thing and the exact oppsite and not cause confusion? Especially when people like you are not even aware that it can mean anything other than what you think it currently means?

It does not mean the exact opposite. And I'm very aware of what it means. Both are standards and guidelines of behavior, thought and action.

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

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

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

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

One more time. Man's morality (MM) is a different standard apart from God's Righteousness (GR) because MM is ALWAYS a judgement of deeds. (Which is generally the lessor of two evils) GR has nothing to do with this standard. GR is a standard based on the condition of the heart in relation to deeds.
This means to judge God immoral is really pointless, as deeds hold no value in His economy.

So, basically, you say that you concede that righteousness is another word for morality, but you'll continue to treat them as separate because it suits your preconceived theology to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can't the second horn fails to explain anything unless you suppose man's morality is an absolute standard. I have shown many times that it is not.

Wrong - the second horn of the dilemma is used to evaluate a moral system. It does not derive its validity from any morality. The "absoluteness" of man's morality - in fact, man's morality itself (if such a thing exists) is irrelevant to Euthyphro's reasoning.

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

Again you like euthy's second horn has failed.

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

so your living in a third world country?

[genkaus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gimme a list then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blah, blah, blah....

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

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

Yes!!!

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

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

And what were intentions while regarding those commands as right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, no. God's righteousness is an appeal to his authority to identify right and wrong in a given act. While morality the acts themselves hold an intrinsic value of right and wrong.

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

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

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

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

Thus making it subjective and arbitrary.

Man's morality however is. In man's morality a given act is assigned a intrinsic moral value. A value that holds true so long as pop culture deems it having value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to evaluate anything there must be a guidline in place to evaluate by. otherwise your evaluation ceases to be an evaluation. It then becomes an observation. Because to evaluate is to judge or render a judgement. Inorder for one to judge one must have a standard to judge by.

The standards here are standards of rationality.

Euth's second horn is indeed a judgement. A Judgement that desperatly depends on morality/morals having a set value. It does not matter what those values are, there simply must be a set value in which morality it self can be determined. Euthy wrongly assumes that the acts themselves hold such a value. Maybe in his world 2500 years ago dealing with the greek gods he was speaking about they did. However in NT Christianity, they do not.

Again you like euthy's second horn has failed.

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

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

so your living in a third world country?

Yes.

[Tonus]

Yes!!! Why? Because the acts themselves hold now moral value in ofthemselves. Again this is why man's morality and God morality are two seperate standards and why I have been calling God's standard 'Righteousness.'

So there is nothing inherently wrong with rape or murder? They are only wrong if god defines them as immoral?