| DélioPT said: "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." |
None of which are relevant to the question of why we should apply a different moral standard to him. Indeed, if he is love and all things associated with love then we should have no need to apply a looser standard that allows him to sanction mass murder.
| If i said that God created morality it`s not in the sense that it exists independently from Him |
Of course not as those position are opposite with you arguing that god created morality and me arguing that it must exists independently of him otherwise it makes it possible for murder to be potentially moral (or any other action currently deemed immoral).
| but He is that aswell. And, ince again, aswell means that it is connected within Him to other aspects of Him. |
But if god creates morality (whether by dictating it or by having morality be a part of god doesn't matter) then my objection that murder and other acts deemed immoral can be a moral acts as you cannot say "god wouldn't do that because he is good" as it implies a standard of goodness external to god to which you can measure god. That standard is what I am claiming exists.
| As before, God takes back what He gave: Life. |
As before, if I give you a car and then take it back it is theft. If you mom took back your life it is murder. If god took back your life it is just as much murder.
| Do you know why it isn´t or wasn`t like you wanted? Cause i can`t read God`s mind. |
Again, you don't need to know his mind to know that his actions are immoral any more than you need to know a criminal's mind to know his actions are immoral.
| The verses might not indicate a relation with morality, but the reason why He created the world might. |
What is this in response to? I ask because your quoting is very sparse and often makes it hard to know what you are responding to.
| If you read a chapter from a book and decide what the book is you will probably be far off and that`s what i am trying to say. |
So you have read the bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 or at least tried to? If not then are you not preaching what you don't practice (reading the book, not specific chapters or verses) ?
I have not read the bible from cover to cover myself. I tried but got lost in the mindnumbing boringness of the book of numbers. I have however read extensively the new testament, though that was about fifteen years ago now and big parts of the old one too so while I might not have read it in its entirety I can confidently say that the only way you can come to the conclusion you came earlier that "He is love" is to only read those verses that claim that or support that and ignore the vast number of verses where he acts no better than humans or the gods of the greek pantheon.
So have you yourself read the bible? If not how do you know that I am the one who is far off in looking at god in his entirety?
| No, point A is always the presence of a choice and it happens everyday since your birth. You have a choice in front of you which could result in a bad or good outcome, you do something about it, you get the reaction of your actions. |
But telling them about god forces the choice for them as it puts them in the same position as if they had made the choice to do a bad action. In both cases they are on the road to hell and need to believe in Jesus to go back to the road to heaven but in one case it is due to their action and in the other due to yours and is thus your responsibility. You keep talking of choice and of good and bad outcome but you keep trying to dodge the consequence of your action.
| "you are damning them first." I don`t choose, accept, etc for people. The damnation or salvation of someone, be it by being good or having a good heart or believing, or just the inverse situation, is a person`s life, not anyone else`s. |
It is if they need to do an action (believe) to be saved that they did not need to do before. You raised the bar to them getting to heaven by your action so if they fail to clear that bar then you bear a responsibility for it.
| Putting me or anyone else in the shoes of someone is overlooking how a person`t life is lived. |
I am not putting you in their shoes, if I did you would be the victim.
| No one decides for you but you. |
But if you tell them about god you decided to make it so that if they don't believe in god they go to hell even if they are good people. That is your decision and thus your responsibility.
| Me arguing about this has only one reason, the same reason that motivates people to explain something: to make others understand. I could resume this entire conversation to the fact that God is good and that was the end of it. |
That's what I explained you should have done in the first place in my last post: "God is good therefore if he wanted me to cut people's ears and pour boiling oild down their throat to save them then that would be a good thing". It is in my view a deeply immoral view (hence why I see saying that god defines/is morality as being an immoral statement) but it is what you profess to believe.
| One clearly says that you need to believe, but this only has Jesus in mind. |
Reread the verse: since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
One of your beliefs is that Jesus is god which means that Jesus is part of what may be known about god as if it wasn't then Jesus would not be god so it includes jesus too.
| The other talks about what will happen to those who sin and deny God when they know in their hearts the truth but choose sin and those who knew Him but still lived in sin. In both ways, God was always known to men. |
And Jesus is god and thus is always known to men too.
| I don`t have an answer for that as much as i could have for your lack of faith. |
My lack of faith is simple. The part about trust and love that you include in it went following reading big parts of the bible while exercising my judgement; something the writers of the bible did not want us to do (whether they were simple men or god writing through men) as it would then appear obvious that the god of love is as much a god of love as islam is a religion of peace.
The part about believing in his existence took longer as it included not only reading the bible but also learning more about the world through science and seeing how the world didn't match with how it was described in the bible. Eventually there was so much cognitive dissonance that I decided that it was more likely that the bible was wrong rather than the world being wrong.
And with the bible being so wrong (but not completely) on both morality and its descriptions of this world, things that we can exert our judgement and experiences upon, I had zero reason to believe that its description of an invisible world that cannot be experienced in our lifetime (and its inhabitants) is any better than its description of this world or than its moral system.
| Remember the samaritan woman situation: "Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." |
But to ask you need first to believe. Do you ask allah to give you faith in him? Of course not, because you don't believe in him. Do you ask ganesha for belief?...
| The aurora borealis was the sign, according to Lúcia. |
And when was that part of the prophecy revealed to the public?
| Not to forget there`s an IF there. And honestly WW2 was centered around Hitler`s actions, which started in 1938. So you were right, the Anschluss was the start of something. |
You are still trying to fit the square peg of the prophecy in the round hole of history by not only adding things that are not part of WWII (the Anschluss) but trying to ignore things that most definitely were part of it (the pacific theater, including the second Sino-Japanese war). Hell, the Anschluss wasn't even a bloody war, it was a coup d'etat by the Austrian Nazi party who seized power and then unified with Germany, yet you want to stretch this non-war event that was over well before the war started (and thus not a part of it) and want to ignore that the prophecy specifically applied to when the war will break out. It cannot be said in any way shape or form that it broke out during the anschluss. It's like saying that World War One started on 28 June 1914, when archduke Ferdinand was assassinated instead of when it really started a month later on 28 July 1914, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.
Yeah, Lucia (or Mary) messed up by making the prophecy too specific. That's prophecy 101, make them vague enough so that it is easy to interpret them in different way so it is never possible to say it is not realised or realisable. Jesus messed up just as much when he said he would come back in the lifetime of those present then didn't show up for nearly 2000 years.
| No, i don`t have a link that i can share, but what i know is in 1926 Jesus appeared to her insisting that she should do more to spread the word. Suppose that asking for more is admiting that the word was shared. |
Sorry but that doesn't cut it. If I was gonna accept an apparition by Jesus in 1926 then I might as well accept the 1917 apparition by Mary. That some part of the prophecy might have been revealed does not mean that the salient part (the parts describing events yet to come when they are revealed to more than just Lucia) was revealed then. The best I can get is Lucia writing a letter two weeks after the aurora borealis, which is no prediction at all unless you want to believe that I am a prophet because a couple months ago the FSM appeared to me and told me Google would buy out Motorola Mobility and Steve Jobs would resign and that these are signs that there will be a recession in Europe. The former cannot be seen as prophetic as they are revealed to the public after they happened and the latter cannot be seen as prophetic as it is as bloody obvious as it was that a guy who wanted to create a German empire would eventually start a war.
| The point in consecrating Russia was for it to not propagate it`s mistakes, which did happen |
And to stop a war that was stopped either years after the consecration of the world by Pius XII in 1942 (which includes Russia) or years before the consecration of russia by Pius XII in 1952 or decades before the consecration of John Paul II in 1984.
If the part of the prophecy about the consecration was correct then either the war AND communism in Russia should have ended sooner (1942) or later (1952) or much later (1984).
Instead, after the first consecration both the war and the spread of communism continued. The war ended before the second consecration but the spread of communism continued and didn't stop until either 1978 (afghanistan) or 1987 (ethiopia, though debatable as it was a communist junta instead of a communist republic). Either way, neither correspond to the 1984 consecration and not everyone even agrees that any of the consecrations fulfilled the prophecy.
And that is not talking about the lack of fulfilment of the prophecy if the consecration worked as not only did Russia not convert to catholicism but the period of peace accorded to the world either occured decades earlier ("peace granted to the world" meaning no world war) or not at all ("peace granted to the world" meaning not even local conflicts).
| and only in 1984 did that happen with John Paul II. Which Mary requested in 1929. In essence, humanity failed, but fortunately it wasn`t a complete failure. |
Given that Russia didn't convert to catholicism and that there wasn't a moment where the world was a peace since 1984 it is more that Mary failed in her prophecy.
| "having the law punish his actions is his punishment." Which means, live by the sword, die by the sword. |
That doesn't address the point I made in answer to your quote you quoted so let me repeat it:
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.
| "Which is why hell is immoral as you are torturing people based on a non-moral criteria" But that`s it: it`s more than morality, so if you keep seeing through morality alone it won`t seem right. |
No. It doesn't seem right because it isn't right to torture good people.
| The problem is you finding faith frivolous. |
The problem is that you are finding morality frivolous.
| For those with ASPD, God will judge them accordingly. |
That's my point. It is not moral for god to judge them for not having a conscience that god did not give them in the first place. He made them evil and then will punish them for being evil, sorry but that's evil.
| "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" Not everything bad is punishment and not everything good is great. There`s a lot to read into it and mostly, we don`t know the day of tomorrow. |
And so we come back to the lack of unambiguous punishment and guidance and how this proves how lousy a father god is.
| See, with all due respect, this is the result of seeing God from an angle and not as a whole. I explain: You forget that all offenses to other are also offenses to God. |
And god can forgive the offense done to him but he cannot forgive the offense done to others.
| And God is just by forgiving those who actually repented. God gives Himself (love) to those who want Him by this reason or another. If people reject Him then, as i said before, they decide that the truth, path and life resides on someone else, something else or themselves. |
Or nowhere because either god doesn't exist or if the god of the bible exist he is immoral and thus cannot be the truth or any kind of path a moral person should follow (don't believe me, read whole books of the bible, not just the verses that your priest likes to quote on sundays).
Matthew 7:15-19 when applied to the bible itself is very revealing.
| The clear indication you want, you already possess it: it`s your conscious and your heart, your ability to know when you were did right or wrong and knowing what made you follow the path you followed. |
Except that the bible is a clear indication that god is a deeply immoral being closer to your conception of satan than your conception of god. This is the same ability to see right from wrong that tells me that when I read from the depravity of the bible.
| Seeing God after for the sake of redemption is not a question of fairness to me, it`s that it makes no sense. Who would love when He`s in front of you? |
WTF? That makes no sense at all. Does that mean that you love no girl that is in front of you?
| People have a lifetime to love and they do or don`t. |
And again, requesting love and torturing if it is not given is an abusive relationship and anybody offering such a deal (love me or you will suffer horribly) is immoral.
|
People are aware of their actions, if not, things would be different. It`s not like i don`t care. I do, a lot. |
They might be aware of their actions but they are not necessarily aware of the morality of them as their morality is often corrupted by religion with some religions saying that blowing yourself up to kill others is moral*, other religions saying that mass murder is moral and others saying that torture can be moral.
As for you caring, if you really do, instead of contesting the "pushing in front of a car" analogy you should say something like "I don't agree with your analogy but to be on the safe side in the future I will warn people of the dangers if they listen to me before teaching them about god".
* note for any muslim reading: I am not claiming that it is part of every muslim's religious belief but it is part of some muslims religious beliefs and thus is valid (and please don't bother to invoke the "no true scotsman fallacy").
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
