| DélioPT said: "Even if there are things in which we are not equal to god it would not follow that there are no things in which we are equal to him." That`s why i said that it`s an impossibility to not look differently at God and men. And to me, that`s more then enough to not judge both the same way as that would be reducing God to humanity`s level. |
You are still using special pleading. You insist that he needs to be treated differently when it comes to morality because he is different but refuse to explain how and why that difference justifies applying a different moral standard.
| Man and woman or X culture and Y culture is still humanity. The ground is still the same. |
Humans and god are still thinking beings capable of seeing the cause of their actions and reason as to whether a given action result in good things (moral actions), result in bad things (immoral actions) or is neutral (amoral actions).
| Death is God`s way of calling someone to judgment. |
No, death is a judgement in and of itself, regardless of whether it is followed by another judgement.
| And to me He does have the right to decides who keeps living and who doesn`t for the time has come - for some - to face their judgment, for good or bad. |
No he doesn't. nobody has the right to murder anybody else, especially when he has the capacity to eschew murder by waiting for them to die.
| My views on God`s actions rely on God as a whole, not on parts as when just looking through morality. |
Those actions of god that do not intersect with morality are of no use to judge his morality. For example his descriptions of the physical world in various verses that do not make moral claims are totally useless to judge his morality. On the other hand, the things that do intersect morality allow us to judge his morality like when he decides to torture good people for not believing. That intersects morality and thus can be judged on moral grounds.
| Still, given our limited ways i do know that i don`t know everything but i do believe in God and trust Him. So, what some consider immoral i will say that given that it comes from God is not immoral as God is good. |
This is circular logic. You define god as defining good (which is what saying he defines morality means) therefore if god does something then it is good and god is good for doing it.
If god defines morality as you claim to believe then he cannot by definition be anything but good, even if he came to your bedroom tonight, tore your skin off your flesh and sodomised you violently. He wouldn't need any reason mind you, like for exampel saying that doing that to you will be good to you in the future for some weird and unfathomable reason, but just being god makes it moral even if he only did it because he fancied to do it.
You can't say "god would never do such a thing without a reason (even if we don't know what that reason is) because he is good" because this implies that there is a way to measure good that is independent of god, which is my position.
For example, if Jesus came back (second coming) and raptured no christians but only non-christian murderers and rapists and decided to send all christians to hell even though he said you would go to heaven if you believed in him then according to your belief him doing such a thing would be good as he is the one doing it.
The belief you express in that way is not your professed belief that:
"god defines morality"
but the belief that:
"morality exists independently from god but god being perfectly good he perfectly follows that independent morality and any perceived immorality on his part is merely us not understanding the factors that make those actions moral".
These two things are not the same at all and the second is a lot closer to my position than to the first one and you keep dancing from one position to another in this debate.
| Thing is, you did not invert everything as you did not invert your stance. The world changed but you. |
Of course I did not invert everything. The whole point was to change only one thing (who god is) and see what the logical consequence of your belief is. If you change everything then you cannot draw any conclusions at all because there are too many variables that come into play and that could explain the results.
In this particular case however, given that you have already made a change yourself (me being in that world instead of you being in it) and given that you are asking me to invert my stance in that world, which, as my stance is the inverse of your stance, nullifies your change then we can now see this thought experiment as such:
I am in a world where Lucifer is the creator of that world (and thus god) and Yahweh is his adversary (and thus Satan). My stance is inverted and is thus now the same as your stance that god defines morality. Well, according to that stance that god(Lucifer in that world) defines morality then when Lucifer(god) defines murder as a good thing and thus a moral action then it is. Same with all other things that you think are immoral in the real world because they come from Lucifer; in that imaginary world they are moral because they come out of god(Lucifer). The teachings of Jesus Christ which you see as moral in this world are now the immoral teaching of Jesus the Antichrist given that they come from satan (Yahweh in that imaginary world). That is the meaning of that belief of yours.
|
The example that i gave "from point A to B" has 3 moments, not two as you read it. It`s: 1: point A, 2: going, 3: point B. |
Point A is either the sidewalk (road to heaven), where you are when you are born, or the street (road to hell). It is either because you do not know whether the person is in the road to heaven or on the road to hell (if you do, like proselytising to a confessed murderer then it doesn't apply either).
Point B is the street (road to hell).
Now the question is what happened to cause the person not to be in point A but in point B. That's what you label moment 2.
One thing that can happen is that the person commits immoral things (or even sins that are not related to morality) but in that case you bear no responsibility for it because it was their action, not yours.
But the case I was talking about is the case when you tell them about god. Before you told them they were in point A. After you told them they are now in point B with no action of their own because simply telling them about god is enough to put them on the road to hell as they now need to believe unlike before.
That is, If you told a person "Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to god but through him" and they had a heart attack as soon as you finished saying 'him' they would still go to hell because they now know about god (because of what you just told them) but haven't had time to believe. That is, mereley telling them puts them in position B and thus merely telling them is moment 2 and as you are the one doing the telling then the moral consequences of it are on you. And if they do not die immediately does not lessen the problem because they are still on the road to hell until such time that they believe so it needs an action on their part (though an unconscious one) to get off the road.
Also, to come back to the other discussion on whether god defines morality (and thus what is good as one is defined in term of the other) or if there is a standard of morality independently of god, if we apply your standard (god defines morality) to the present discussion then why do you bother arguing that it is not like pushing somebody in front of a car? To be consistent with that belief you would have to say something like "even if it is like throwing someone in front of a car it is still good/moral because god told us to do it. Even if god told us to literally push someone in front of a car (or horsecart in Jesus' time) to save them then it would be moral to do it because god would then have told us to do it. Even if god had told us to cut unbeliever's ears off, gouge their eyes out and torture them then in such a case I would have to do it because god would have told us to do it and it would thus be good/moral."
But you don't. You argue that it is not the same as the immoral act of deliberately pushing someone in front of a car which is another indication that while you profess to believe that god defines morality, the way you go about trying to argue that this or that is moral not by relying on scripture telling you to do those things but by disputing the analogy is a good indication that you do not 'believe' that god defines morality but only 'believe that you believe' that god defines morality.
| You are claiming that telling someone about point A makes them automatically go to point B. |
No, I am claiming that the logical conclusion of the first quote that started that part of our conversation* is that if a person knew about Jesus (by you telling them for isntance) then the goodness of their heart and of their works is not enough anymore for them to be on the road to heaven. Given that there are only two roads, one to hell and one to heaven then that means that if they are told about Jesus then they are now on the road to hell through no action of their own but from your action (or the action of whoever told them about Jesus).
That they can nullify this negative change in their spiritual condition by subsequently believing in Jesus does not change the fact that telling them about Jesus does have a detrimental effect on their spiritual life and puts them in great danger.
* which is here for reference:
| DélioPT said: I believe, like there`s an example on the Bible of a rich and poor man and how one goes to heaven and the other not, that in situations like these God will look at the goodness of their hearts. Supposing that said person never KNEW about Jesus' and His teachings... |
| Me telling someone or presenting them with a choice, it`s just that point A, they do something about it and it`s because of that individual action that they reach their point B. |
No. Point A is before the telling and point B is after the telling. It is the telling that does the moving/pushing from point A to point B. They can then leave point B by making the "right" choice (believing in Jesus) but that choice does not put them in point B as they are already there after being told about god but can only potentially move them away from point B and back onto the sidewalk (path to heaven).
| If i tell a sinner about God is not in the safe zone, he`s still in the start. Which means a sinner isn`t saved because i told him about God, as a good person isn`t damned because i told them about God. |
Yes they are, because telling them about god does not transform them from a good person to a bad person but even though they are still a good person they are now damned not because of their deeds or their heart but because they do not believe in Jesus yet. That that damnation brought upon them by you is reversible (by them believing) does not change the fact that you are damning them first.
| The quotes aren`t contradictory. It tells of people who had the "law" in them - those before Jesus - and those after Jesus who already knew about Him we then needed belief and baptism. |
They are contradictory. One says that you can be saved even if you don't know Jesus (by having the law in your heart) but the other says that you cannot not know god as all about him is obvious in nature. So if everybody knows god then everybody needs to believe in him to be saved which contradict the verse saying that you can be saved without knowing Jesus.
Contradictory might be the wrong word though, 'negating' might be better as it means that the pool of people who do not know god (and thus can be saved merely by having the law inscribed in their acts) is filled with zero people as all people know god as he is supposedly manifest in the world.
The result is still contradictory though as regardless of whether you cannot be saved without Jesus or whether you can theoretically be saved without him but practically can't because "what may be known about God is plain to them" (which would include knowing about Jesus as Jesus is God) the end result is the same: you need to believe in Jesus to be saved.
| The other, complementary view is that, to those after Jesus who knew both realities can see how connected they are, how the source is the same. |
Even if it doesn it doesn't have any bearing on whether they are contradictory or not.
| Faith, like salvation, is given to those who open themselves to God. God gives them to those who want Him. You can`t claim that God is bad because He didn`t give someone faith and he went to hell for it,because that`s forgetting that you do have a say in this, a very important one. |
But opening yourself to god is not enough to give you faith, otherwise the guy from "Atheist for Jesus" (who by definition openend himself to god as he is for Jesus) would not be an atheist anymore but a christian.
| No, everyone is given every second the opportunity to receive faith. |
So why has the atheist for jesus not received faith yet?
| Mary wasn`t wrong. When did everything start? March 13th 1938 when Hitler invaded the first country, that`s when everything started. |
Sorry but you fail at history. The Anschluss was not a part of world war II but a cause of world war II. The prophecy specifically says "a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI". The Anschluss was not worse than world war I and it was over by the time the war broke out.
Even if we were to include military actions involving participants in World War II that happened before World War II itself then the prediction would still fail but for a different reason. It would then fail by not being a prediction any more as the Japanese were at war with China since 1937, before the 1938 letter of Lucia that is the earliest reference to the second secret I could find.
Redefining terms to make them fit a prophecy does not make a prophecy right and thus this prophecy fails just as much as Jesus's prophecy that his second coming would be before all of the people that were in the room with him when he made the prophecy would die. In that case Paul tried to salvage it by saying that 1 day is equal to 1000 years but it fails too as Jesus did not mention days or months or years but that some present with him would still be alive during his second coming. That prophecy is also thought as one of the possible origins of the legend of the wandering jew as for it to still be fulfillable you need at least one of those present when Jesus uttered these words to not have tasted death yet (but then it would contradict god saying that the length of man's days would be 120 years).
| The warning of another war was already revealed in 1917 during the first apparitions when Mary showed hell and warned about a new war. |
Boohoo. I can tell you there will be another war and a worse one than WWII with more deaths. Am I a prophet? No. I just know that humans are a bunch of idiots that keep killing each others over stupid things and that it means that there eventually will be another war. Advances in science means that not only it will be fought with more destructive weapons than what we have today (let alone WWII) but also that the population of the earth will be higher than it is now (let alone WWII) thus making more potential targets for an inflated bodycount.
Where the specific parts (Pius XI, the aurora borealis...) revealed by Lucia right after 1917? Were they revealed in 1938 like the earliest date I could find? If 1917 or in between could you point me to a resource saying when those revelations where made public by Lucia or the Vatican accompanied by which details where made public when?
| The part of the secret that was kept secret was about the evil done by Russia and it`s consequences, but even that one was known in due time for that evil to end. |
Yeah, for it to end... 45 years after WWII, with Russia still not converted (they are still majoritarily Orthodox, not Catholic, not even eastern rites).
| Accepting love from the girl is no different from accepting the love from God. You have to open yourself, forget fears and lose yourself to find yourself. |
Only if the girl threatens to torture you if you don't accept her.
| It`s not a question of morality, as heaven nor hell are a question of moraility. |
Which is why hell is immoral as you are torturing people based on a non-moral criteria.
| If you are going to reduce God`s punishments to your father`s punishments, you really are not going to understand God. |
It is an analogy that not supposed to make me understand god but make you understand the stupidity of god's approach to child rearing (with us being his children).
| If a person decides to be bad and start robbing people, having the law punish his actions is his punishment. |
Yes, by us, but it is not a divine punishment. If it is then when the law mistakenly imprisons or execute somebody who is later proven innocent then those are god's mistake too. It would be intellectually dishonest to attribute punishments issued from the process of human justice to god without also attributing errors in the same process to god too.
| Just because God doesn`t come here and say what you did wrong, doesn`t mean He doesn`t show you why you are wrong, punishes you or guides you. |
Reread what I wrote in my earlier posts. My problem is not only that he doesn't punish or guide us but that he doesn't do it in an obvious way. He only does it in ways that are at best ambiguous: Is the Lisbon earthquake punishment for not praying enough, hence the destruction of the churches or a punishment for praying too much (or the wrong god) and not fornicating enough, hence the destruction of the churches and the sparing of the whorehouses? It's not very clear and thus is a totally and utterly worthless punishment and piece of guidance.
You keep repeating that he punishes and guides us when the standard of usefulness is punishing and guiding us in an obvious way.
| You have a concious to feel regret and sorrow too. |
You actually bring to mind an excellent point. There are people who have absolutely zero conscience. None, Zilch, nada, nil... we used to call them psychopaths but now say they suffer from ASPD. If god exists then he made them with no remorse, how does that square off with an all-loving god?
| God`s punishment is the consequence of your actions. |
So if I go rock climbing, slip, fall and break my leg (or worse) that is god's punishment? So if a murderer manages to escape punishment then it means that he is not punished (the corollary of what you said earlier about sentences by human justice being god's judgement).
| Do you really want God to not help? |
I want him to be just, not to capriciously grant everlasting bliss to murderous monsters that tried to replicate hell on earth during their life merely because they confessed to a priest and regretted (= repented) to a person that was not the primary party of the offenses they commited (god) on one hand while on the other condemning good people to eternal torture because they believed in the wrong god (or no god).
| He does because He doesn`t act as human judges, because He doesn`t judge like a human judge does. |
Which is the problem. He does not judge upon moral values and a concept of justice but largely upon the capricious criteria of belief.
| If life ends and eternity starts, both hell or heaven have to be forever. There`s no second life. |
No they don't. If god created the system and he is omnipotent then he could have created it in a different way where people would have clear indications not only of what is wrong (immoral) but also why it is wrong and with clear indications of what you are being punished for so you know to improve in that area. He also doesn't need to send good people to be tortured for believing the wrong thing as that belief is cured when they die and see the reality of god and thus the only difference between those good people and believers (at least the good ones that go to heaven) doesn't exist anymore. You might try to claim that it wouldn't be fair to treat them the same as they only believed (well, "knew" rather) after death unlike the christians but it would be imfinitely more fair than torturing them for eternity for the same thing.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
