So if a mormon argued christianity with you by quoting the book of mormon you would find his argumentation based on the book of mormon compelling? After all, they are christian so it is related to the bible too.

The question is not only why but was it possible. Clearly it is as we do it routinely with our children, so there was not good reason not to do so then as all it did was confirm them in their immorality and give it a veneer of morality by sanctifying with god's approval.

True, but my point was he did contradict the old testament, with which you agreed in an earlier post, so that point still stand.

We are going in a circle here. I maintain that if salvation was about morality then the only determining factor for it should be whether somebody's heart (primarily) and actions were good, adding any other requirement on top of that makes it not about morality but about being part of a club.

And the first two are not necessary for the third one though they can be one of the paths to it (if the teachings of the being you believe in and love are moral themselves) so having those positive but unnecessary elements be required makes salvation not about rewarding morality. I am not saying that they should not be accepted, but I am saying they should not be required.

You still avoid the point of the countless people throughout the world that are moral and yet do not believe and thus have neutral feelings towards god. Why should these people be denied heaven if it is about rewarding moral behaviour?

No, that's why it is.

Which is exactly the problem. God is acting like a jealous lover (which the bible recognise) who goes in a fit of rage if his advances are spurned even if the person who is not interested in him is a good person. It is not about morality, it is about the bruised ego of someone who should be way more mature than that.

Any human acting in such a way would be seen as unbalanced but higher beings get a pass on an immoral behaviour by claiming that it is somewhat moral but we puny humans just can't understand how.

It's a reward all right*, I don't deny that, but it is not a reward for a moral behaviour and a moral heart.

* of course, if it exists that is.

It is not a question to like it or not, it is a question that if that part of christianity is true then god is not a being worthy of worship regardless of whether he exists or not.

Good, though I don't know why a god that supposedly loves all of us would punish for eternity some of us that are good because they don't havppen to believe in him.

I have taken quite a lot of time with it actually, over the years, but merely regaining the belief that the god of christianity exist would not be enough to make me be a christian as while there are a number of moral teachings in christianity there are too many moral flaws for me to subscribe to it.

This is also why i don't call myself an atheist. Saying I am an atheist would imply that merely being proved the existence of a given deity would convert me to that deity's religion. But I have a much higher standard than mere existence for a god being worthy of worship as I believe their moral teachings should also be moral.

That's why i say that I am:

 technically an agnostic - I can't prove god's existence either way

practically an atheist - I live my life like there are no gods

theologically an apatheist - The question of whether god exist is irrelevant to me (except as an intellectual exercise but not as a religious one)

and philosophically an orthotheist - I reject the implicit coupling between god and morality and view both as orthogonal to each other (no dependence) so that you have the possibilities of an immoral god that doesn't exist, an immoral god that exists, a moral god that doesn't exist or a moral god that exist.

No problem. While we disagree about the morality of the requirements for heaven this is something that will only matter once we are dead so it is not likely to cause you to do immoral things in the name of religion. However, accepting religious ideological teachings as moral without prior scrutiny can cause problems when they are closer to our world, as you can get excesses like the inquisition, the 9/11 terrorists or stalin killing millions (which is why I striked "religious" and replaced it with "ideology" as even if an ideology is not religious, if you accept its teachings uncritically then the same pitfalls apply).

And my opinion is only the last one should matter. We obviously strongly disagree on that.

That is another point where we strongly disagree as I do not see his requirements for heaven as being fair.

If the first part is right then your second part is false as if you spread the word of god but fail to convince a good person to convert then according to your first part he would have gone to heaven but since you spread the word of god to him you condemned him to hell.

Modern birds are dinosaurs though unless I'm very much mistaken.

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

I did say that in a way i resorted to the New Testament because you said it would be better to use it to speak to player1x3 in a way he would best agree. That`s almost what i did. DIdn`t quote the NT, but used Mary that is part of the NT.

Teaching kids is different because, given their young age and inability to comprehend things, you do make them do things that only later they will understand. The situation we are speaking is different. They, most of them at least, could comprehend. But given that their hearts were hard i understood it as they having clouded hearts to God`s way. And God knew this. He knew that somehow, they wouldn`t or couldn`t follow His ways even if He revealed them. That immorality was actually against Himself and His pure heart.
If i might add something, one with a hard heart and looking at some descriptions of the reactions of the people during Moses time - worshipping that false idol - might be a good indication of what Jesus meant by hard heart, that being, easily corrupted. I also believe that God was strict and even went against His will for the sake of those same people.

Why should these people be denied heaven if it is about rewarding moral behaviour?
This is exactly where we disagree. Heaven or hell is not just a question of morality, or, being good or bad.
Heaven and hell are much more than a moral system.
When Jesus said: I am the Truth, the Path and Life, He wasn`t just speaking of morality or ethics. That`s why it is said that it`s the love of God that saves you - and within that love, there is a place for morality.
Someone who doesn`t want to have God in him, ends up saying: You are not my truth, You are not my path and not my life. This is an offense to God, because He is all that. Any sin is the same as rejecting God in one way or the other and attribtuing those 3 qualities to someone else, to something else or even to themselves.
So yes, the price of rejecting God is great, but so is the reward for accepting God.
If God is all that these are also requirments for your salvation or damnation because there`s one thing that morality per se doesn`t encompass: where`s the regret for offending God? Where is the apology and reparation for our sins?

How do you know that spreading the word of God would be like opening the door to damnation? What if he was a bad person and it actually was the word of God that saved him? Jesus didn`t come for those who are good and love God, He come for those who need His guidance. That`s why it`s so important to spread His word either to save them or to in a broad way, help the rest in their lives.

Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs. There is no scientific definition in which they are considered dinosaurs. Also not all dinosaurs evolved flight, only one small group did - the rest went extinct. Dr.Grass was being condescending at the same time as being wrong which is never good.

He was trying to prove that dinosaurs flew and he linked to an animal that wasn't a dinosaur. I wasn't trying to be condescending but "It's kind of like a dinosaur" is not the same as "It is a dinosaur". It would be like me trying to prove that bears can climb trees by linking to a Koala.

what does any of this have to do with the origins of the universe?

Almost but no cigar.

If that was the case then Jesus should have repudiated it instead of claiming that he was fulfilling it. Why would he fulfill a law that goes against god and his pure heart?

We are not disagreeing on it being more than a moral system, we are agreein on it but we are disagreeing on it being moral. It is a case where the sum of the part is less than one of the parts themselves. But I will stop arguing with you on this point as we are going in circle. To paraphrase:

You - Heaven is more than just moral

Me - That is why it is not about rewarding morals.

You - Heaven is more than just about moral.

Me - That is why it is not about rewarding morals.

So you equate morality with god. In that case let me ask you if you think what the 9/11 terrorists did could possibly be seen as moral? If you really believe that then you cannot unequivocally say that their action are immoral as there is the possibility that there belief is right and that their god exist and told them to do it, which, in your worldview, would make their actions moral as they would then originate from god.

My view is that even if they are believing in the right god and that god told them to do these acts the these are still immoral acts regardless of who told them to do it. When Joshua invaded Jericho it was an immoral act of unprovoked agression even though god told him to do it.

If you start with the hypothesis that somebody defines morality and that his acts are always moral then no matter how outrageously immoral those act would be considered had anybody else done them then they would be seen as moral. If you apply the same moral standard to everyone, god included, then you realise that god is not the highly moral being he claims to be so rejecting him cannot be immoral.

But if he was good and did not believe then you condemned him. The only safe thing to do is to teach the moral part of the bible without the supernatural part as if they are already moral then they do not risk being damned for having heard but being unconvinced and if they are immoral but realise the morality of the teaching then they can become moral and thus be saved by their newfound morality without the risk of losing said salvation if they find the precepts moral but are not convinced by the supernatural parts.

And if you only spread the morality principles without spreading the supernatural parts you can still save them without putting them at risk. If your assertions are right it is the logical way to proceed.

Fair enough! :D People will make their own judgment on what was said.

There`s more to the passage you gave me: Mattew 17:19 and probably a better explanation here. He didn´t come to copy them to to actually fulfil God`s visions on the Law (hence the change), God`s ways and what was said about Himself.

I did not see it as you agreing with it being more than a moral system. So yes, it`s not just about rewarding morality. That`s why i don`t equate morality with God, unless you are implying that i see God as moral or morality, in that case yes.
I don`t see that terrorist attack as moral or any other kind of act of violence. As you know, the God is the same and that God does not allow for people to take their own lives - as much as they think, at least according to someone who posted on the forum regarding that issue.
It seems to me that you are falling a bit on relativism. If i understood you correctly, you are saying that A makes morals, therefore to him it`s always moral and that if person B does the same than rejecting A wouldn`t be immoral but actually moral - according to morals of person B himself.
You are still seeing this through the eyes of morality. Rejecting God isn`t, at least to me, immoral or moral, it`s, since i believe it`s more tham morals, a sin. Morals don`t encompass everything, so rejecting God can`t be seen through morality - or lack of it.
But i get your point, in general, is, why should God be seen as the truth, path and life and not something else? I can`t answer you this without saying: it`s all about faith.
Rationally everything might seem the same or worthy of the same value, but in the end, reason can`t be the one to decide. Your heart will be the one that will guide you, hopefully on the right track.

Even if he was good, i didn`t condemn him as i also didn´t save him. Being presented with a way happens every day. Should i not let him learn about the world for the sake of not risking anything?
Teaching one part and not the rest would already be a sin. More, the word of God is not just about salvation. There´s a lot more than just preparing oneself for salvation. What Jesus taught us was more than that and that`s reason alone to speak of God.
When a missionaire talks of God he isn`t only concerned about salvation.

I bet you've been waiting for years to jump the first person you hear that states a pterodactyl is a Dinosaur. Seriously, that's hardly the point I was making was it? Congratulations on your 'victory'. Now you just have to requote it a few more times so that everyone on VG can see how you completely pwnd me with your wisdom.

Ok, let me rephrase: There were Ancient flying reptiles. Better? I'll leave the Paleontology to you.

My point was that flight evolved independently in several different species. That is a far more interesting point than the nomenclature attached to ancient reptiles.

EDIT:

And you go ahead to call a one-liner comment from me condescending? You might do well to put down your Dinosaurs toys and look up what the word means: ''Condescending: Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude''

Hasn't anyone on this site heard? The possibility of us just randomly coming into existence is almost an infinite possibility altogether.

Read: http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/equilibrium03.html

Take it as you will.