| DélioPT said: "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." |
So not believing is evil? So you are telling me that hindus, muslims, buddhists... and possibly other christian denominations are evil for not believing?
| There`s no need for a looser standard. |
Then why do you insist on applying a looser standard to god?
| What i have been trying to say is, we can`t read God like we are reading another human because, even if we share something with Him, we are not purity and grace and morality like He is. |
Saying we are not morality like him is circular as you state that morality is being defined by him so even if he commited the most immoral act you could imagine then it would still be moral in your eye because he was the one doing it.
Besides you keep saying "reading god" when we don't need to as all we need to do is read his actions.
| The result of this is what makes in our eyes something like punishing with death immoral, but to God, who reclaimed the gift He gave first, as acceptable. |
No. Like I said earlier, if I gave you something and took it back it would be theft. In the case of a life it is murder. And how is seeing as moral something seen as immoral when done by somebody else (killing somebody) not having a looser moral standard ?
| And no, it`s not the same as a mother taking back a son`s life. JUst because you see the same actions doesn`t mean one judgment fits all. |
Special pleading again. You claim it is different but you don't support it except with more special pleading ("but god is different").
| No i haven`t. But i have been read in church for years, both old and new testament. It`s not a question of how much one has read, it`s a question of perception of God. |
And that's the problem. You and/or your priest picks what he likes for his sermon and ignores what he doesn't like. How can you claim to perceive god if you do not read the parts that you do not like? You are not perceiving god so much as projecting your idea of what god should be onto him.
| What you do is forget that you and God are different and reduce Him to your standards. |
More special pleading. I am not reducing him to my standard, everybody starts at the same standard and thus there is no reduction needed. if you want to lower him to a lower moral standard then the onus is on you to support that assertion.
| "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." What i do does put Him in the face of a choice - as i always agreed with - but that`s just it. |
And pushing someone in front of a car also put them in the face of a choice and that's it too, no difference.
| The choice is in neutral ground, it does not put them in a position of a bad choice, it just puts them in a position and nothing more. |
The choice (to get off the road or not) is in neutral ground, it does not put them in a position of a bad choice, it just puts them in a position and nothing more.
It makes as little sense in both cases.
| But as i said before, it`s no diffferent than your every day life. You say i raised the bar, but that`s an "illusion". |
How is it an illusion? Does the person not have to do something after you taught them about god that they did not need to do before? How is that illusory?
| It`s still a choice like any other because they can act on it like in any other choice. The perception is that it`s way harder, when it`s not. |
It`s still a choice like any other (getting off the road) because they can act on it like in any other choice. The perception is that it`s way harder, when it`s not.
It makes as little sense in both cases.
| Both quotes you gave me were after Jesus but only one specifically referred to the belief part - which was the shortest quote. The other not only referes to that but to the fact that God - your concious of good and right - is now seen in it`s full light. In your view, how then could people know Jesus before He was even born? Because it`s not to be read that way. |
The quote says "what may be known about god". If Jesus cannot be known before he was even born then that implies that he was not a part of god before he was conceived as if he was then he would be part of what may be known about god. I assumed that it was not your belief as you are a catholic and this belief is heretical (the arian heresy) as it contradict the nicene creed:
"And in Lord Jesus Christ, [...], begotten, not made..."
it is even more clear in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed:
"And in Lord Jesus Christ, [...], begotten of the Father before all worlds, [...], begotten, not made..."
So if Jesus existed before he was begotten by the holy spirit then he is part of what may be known about god.
|
"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?..." That`s the point, to have faith you need to open yourself to God. |
How is that the point? I said the exact opposite of what you said and you say "that's the point"?
Let me repeat: To open yourself to god you need to have faith. By opening your heart you are already displaying belief in god as if you did not believed him to exist you would have no particular reason to open your heart to something you do not believe in.
The only exception I can think of would be if you do not believe but wished you did, like the atheist for Jesus. But if it qualifies as opening himself then why does he not believe? If it doesn't qualify then my point that you need to believe first before you can open yourself stands.
| Mary spoke of a sign in the sky as the sign where the world would receive punishment. Lucia read that sign as the sign of God. |
And when was that sign made public? The earliest reference i can find is more than a week after the aurora which destroys any predictive part to it as though it was alleged to have been revealed two decades earlier there is no proof of that.
| First, the center of WW2 was Hitler. He was the one who triggered it beggining 1938. It`s not me trying to fit anything, it`s how it happened. |
No it's not. The Anschluss was not an act of war and was not a war and thus cannot in any way, shape or form be regarded as the "breaking out" of the war. It was a political coup by Austrian nazis, not an act of war by Germany.
And you are definitely trying to fit things because you are narrowing WW2 geographically to exclude the second Sino-Japanese war to preserve the predictive part as you cannot seem to produce any supporting evidence of public knowledge of the prophecy prior to the start of it, whilst broadening WW2 temporally by including political happenings that led to WW2 but were not part of the war. You also conveniently ignore the part about "break out" as it rules out the Anschluss.
| Mary didn`t speak of a world war, she spoke of a bigger and worser war, fammin, martyrs and the pope. |
And the only war that was worse than WW1 after WW1 was WW2. It is also quite puzzling why she would mention persecution of the church (and there indeed was some) but fail to mention persecution of god's chosen people which was much greater than the persecution of the church.
| From what i read, it was the church who came out late enough to spread Mary`s warnings (only in 1939). |
I think you mean "too late" or "so late" instead of "late enough", right?
It wouldn't make sense for god (either directly or in the form of Jesus or through Mary) to instruct Lucia to reveal it but not to instruct the successor of St Peter to do the same until is was very late given the importance of the message.
| The consecration and convertion didn`t mean that Russia would become pure, as not any country is. |
Not necessarily pure but having an actual conversion as prophesized would support your case.
| And Mary was very specific on the consacration, which only happened with John Paul II. |
So why did WW2 finish about 40 years before said consecration that was supposed to grant a period of peace to the world? And if the lack of a world war was not said period of peace then why was there no period with no war (a period of peace) since the consecration? if the period of peace is less than a world war but more than a local war then how do you determine what amount of war is acceptable to fit the prediction in a non-arbitrary way?
| It was given to Mary for her protection and love. So, it`s not a question of converting to catolicism as i pointed out. |
So I am supposed to be impressed by a conversion that is not a conversion? Is your name Delio or Humpty Dumpty?
| The time of peace was only given and promised after the consecration of Russia. Not before. Does that mean that the world in its entirety would be all loving? It`s not what was promised. |
I did not mention all loving so that's a straw man. Mary through Lucia did mention peace given to the world and it was not given after the consecration if taken as peace everywhere in the world (peace does not imply all loving, only a lack of war) or it was given decades before the consecration if peace given to the world means a lack of world war.
| Even if Lucia wrote the letter after the aurora doesn`t mean the prediction was less of a prophecy. If anything, the Church came out too late to do anything in time - as Mary already foretold it would happen. |
The question is not whether it was a prophecy but whether you can support your claim that it was. If the oldest reference to the light is after the aurora then you cannot support the claim that it was a prophecy even if it was indeed one. If I told you that I had a prophecy from the FSM but was not allowed to reveal it yet and revealed it in 10 years and the prophecy mentioned events in the next 10 years then I could not use these events as evidence that it is a true prophecy even if I did indeed receive them before they happened.
| You are being to literal about this example. I could give you another: those who don`t forgive and hate bind themselves to a life without peace and hate. |
You conflate lack of forgiveness and hate but you can hate without needing anything to forgive (like racism) and you can not forgive without hating a person. For example, if someone does me a great wrong I might not be willing to forgive him until he apologise for it (and redress it if necessary) and in doing so asks for forgiveness but even if a person slighted me doesn't mean that they are totally evil or bad enough to warrant such a thing as hate and thus I am not likely to hate them even if there is no love lost between us.
You seem to live in a very black and white world where people either have love or hate but there is a whole spectrum of emotions between love and hate and you are missing out on a lot of the subtelety of life if you label people and their interrelationship with such a broad brush.
| The whole point is to see that the punishment of God is not smacking you in the head when you do something God, it`s His lack of love. When people reject Him they get a life without Him. That`s the punishment i was talking about. |
And we go back to the lack of clear guidance and punishment as a hindu is without god as he is with the wrong one but yet he doesn't seem to feel it as a punishment. A muslim is similarly without your god and yet he sees that state as such a lack of punishment that he feels that he is with your god (the god of Abraham that is, not your specific version of it) and feels the same reward of being with him that you do.
|
"The problem is that you are finding morality frivolous." No i`not. |
It is less important than faith as you can live an immoral life and as long as you find faith before you die, repent and accept Jesus you are saved. Maybe frivolous is too strong a word but your belief definitely lowers its importance with respect to faith which I view as a very bad thing.
| Why does it make it ambiguous? Because you have to read every single event in your life? Don`t you already do that? |
It is not the necessity of assigning meaning to the events that make it ambiguous but that there are more than one interpretation that you can red in each event.
| God forgives everything if people truly repent. |
You don't understand. He has no moral right to forgive in my name. He can forgive in his own name but he can no more forgive in my name than I can forgive in your name. If somebody slights me they should ask me for forgiveness, not god. If it slights god at the same time then they need to ask god for the part that slights him but they also still need to ask me for your forgiveness because he has no power to forgive in my name.
| "Matthew 7:15-19" Yes it is. Jesus met them in His lifetime and was even trialed by them before going to Pontious Pilate. |
The passage talks about false prophets. Jesus was not trialed by false prophets but by real priests. But even if that was the case the message is still applicable to the claims of the bible as a whole as Jesus said that you can recognise false prophets by their fruits and that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit but when you look at the old testament it is bad fruit after bad fruit (mass murders, wars, genocides...) and thus according to the standard given by Jesus o recognise bad trees the old testament is such a bad tree.
You might claim that it is not because god ordered it and thus they are not bad fruit but that then nullifies Jesus' way of recognising bad fruits as any fals prophet will claim the same thing about what you perceive to be bad fruit. For example you might see some of islam's teachings as bad fruits and reject Mohammed as a false prophet (If you didn't you would be a muslim) but if what you say about god defining morality is true then if god did indeed reveal himself to mohammed then what you see as bad fruit would be as good as the bad fruit of the old testament that you see as good fruits.
Thus, you cannot differentiate between bad fruits and good fruits and have to rely on faith that your religion is true to believe that its fruits are good and on your faith that islam is not true to see its fruit as bad.
But this contradict what Jesus said as he said that you can judge by judging the fruits but in reality you cannot judge by the fruit without faith or you would have to judge the various atrocities of the old testament as being bad fruits.
| "Does that mean that you love no girl that is in front of you?" That`s not the point i was trying to pass. But i admit i did not explain well. |
I didn't think it was but I wanted to point out the nonsensical nature of the statement.
| Think of S. Thomas and how it`s important to believe without seeing. |
And that is another part of christianity that I totally disagree with. I understand that it is important to christianity but to me it is a strong indication that it is a false religion.
If christianity was a true religion it would not need to rely on faith but on truth only and if your god existed he would not feel the need to invoke your sense of gullibility but would simply say "seek the truth and you will find me".
While I do not believe in Buddhism either I find that I totally agree with that quote:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
The truth does not need belief because the truth just is, whether you believe in it or not, so if a religion is true one necessary (but not sufficient) element would be that it ask you not to believe but to seek the truth. Christianity does not do that, it asks you to believe and declares that jesus is the truth and tells you to accept that on faith.
| After seeing God, it`s not so much how you will love Him but how you will believe in Him. The girl is already in front of you all the time. There`s no believing first. |
But when you get to know the girl and get to see that she is a good person you can get to love her even if you didn't believe in her existence before meeting her. Same thing with god. If a good person dies without believing (even though they might have heard) then they would know that Jesus is god and thus belief is superfluous but they can get to understand god in a way that they might not have been able to understand before death (as their teachers were human and not god himself) and get to love him.
What about the atheist for Jesus? He loves Jesus, he just doesn't believe that he exists. When he dies then he will know that Jesus does exist and he will love him just as much so shouldn't he be saved as he will then have both love of Jesus and knowledge of his existence?
What about muslims? The love Jesus and believe that he is a prophet of god, they just don't believe that he is god himself. When they die they will know that Jesus is indeed god and they will love him just as much so shouldn't they be saved?
How can it be moral for god to send a good person who is a muslim to be tortured in hell when that person loves Jesus and by virtue of being dead now knows that he is not just a prophet but god and thus accepts him as such?
| Do you know how or in what way God will judge these people who have ASPD? |
They have no remorse and thus can't repent. Do you know what happens to people who do not repent?
| Not only are people aware of their actions, but they are aware of it feels when doing them and how people react to them. That`s a lot of information in your hand. |
Going by that standard then fornication is definitely moral as it feels great, the girls react very well to it and the guys react to a retelling by giving high fives (and vice-versa for women though they would not express it through high-fives).
Does that make sense? Of course not because the bible declares a lot of things that feel good to those doing them and do not hurt others as immoral.
| Not to forget that people have a mind of their own to judge things. |
But they might shut it off and refuse to use it just like you do with respect to god's "fruits".
| When people follow hate and silence the pain of others or morality, they "decided" to follow a path, to adhere to a way willingly. But as before, only God knows exactly well why people decide this or that way of life. |
You make a barefaced assertion that those that do not follow your morality and/or your belief follow hate and silence the pain of others but that is just not true.
While there are who do that, sometimes for religious reasons like terrorists, it simply cannot be said of everybody that does not believe in your religion as if it was true you would have catholic countries be shining beacons of morality and non-catholic countries be total anarchies and yet few countries are total anarchies regardless of religion or lack thereof.
For example you might think that I am having this discussion with you out of hate but it is the opposite. I think that your religious beliefs have strong moral shortcomings and I think that you are a moral person not because of those beliefs but despite them and I would like you to see the immoralities of you beliefs so you could be a better person as you would not have to pervert your morality by glossing over the immoral parts of your beliefs and believing that they are moral but by exercising your moral judgement and saying "even if these teachings are true I, as a person striving towards morality, cannot accept them due to their lack of morality".
And you are doing the opposite. You believe that your position is moral and thus would like to convince me that they are both moral and true to save me.
We are both acting out of love, not hate, even though only one of us can be right about the morality of his position.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
