Of what worth is your God?

@thinkofone said
You and Duke are still running under the delusion that people are or can be good enough to be accepted by such a God. Scripturally speaking there are no scriptural backing for such a belief.

Actually there is. You disingenuously pick and choose passages to ignore and/or distort in order to continue to believe the dogma that you've been taught.

Following is bu ...[text shortened]... tent with the gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth. You believe in a different gospel.

You should read all of that book, as well as the rest of scripture too for that matter.

@kellyjay said
The world isn't limited to my thoughts on any topic, my opinions on what is going on only reside in me. I can have thoughts about any topic and none of those would alter anything outside of my beliefs or opinions.

I am asking you about your opinions and thoughts and beliefs on this sub-topic.

I asked you "Does Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical make any moral sense to you?" And you have said that it does make sense to you to a degree. Tell us more about how and why it makes sense to you.

@kellyjay said
Jesus is the truth, the way, the life what keeps you from that isn't.

I know you believe in "Jesus". I am asking you to talk about the way in which Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical makes moral sense to you.

@fmf said
I am asking you about your opinions and thoughts and beliefs on this sub-topic.

I asked you "Does Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical make any moral sense to you?" And you have said that it does make sense to you to a degree. Tell us more about how and why it makes sense to you.

Good and loving are words that gender a meaning, a value of sorts. Depending on what is good and what is not. From a perspective that mankind is the sole scale of both of those, can we accurately say what really is good and bad? Mankind would simply be talking about personal standards, applying them to others, who also have their own personal standards. We cannot judge ourselves by ourselves that is meaningless.

The scales of human 'good' are always in a state of flux, what one generation finds good the next could call evil. So that means we cannot really grasp either of those words even love could mean one thing to you and another to me. We cannot say that society is the real scale, I've heard it said we could find some societies love their neighbors by doing good to them, others could love their neighbors because they taste good. Perspectives goals and meanings again are in flux.

This isn't so with God, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever more. When God is called good it is because that is what God is, and has never been anything else and will never be anything else. As judge there is no change within God, there is no shadow of turning, His judgments are true and we are all sinners. That means we either need a savior or judge, Jesus is both.

@kellyjay said
Good and loving are words that gender a meaning, a value of sorts. Depending on what is good and what is not. From a perspective that mankind is the sole scale of both of those, can we accurately say what really is good and bad? Mankind would simply be talking about personal standards, applying them to others, who also have their own personal standards. We cannot judge ourse ...[text shortened]... dgments are true and we are all sinners. That means we either need a savior or judge, Jesus is both.

Thanks for the slab of doctrine; it will perhaps edify some of your fellow Christians or they might smirk at your dodging.

Because the question remains sidestepped.

Clue: it can't be answered with scripture-based recitation because Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical was an alternative to what you have rote-learned.

You said that his hypothetical made moral sense to you to a degree.

Tell us more about how and why.

@fmf said
Thanks for the slab of doctrine; it will perhaps edify some of your fellow Christians or they might smirk at your dodging.

Because the question remains sidestepped.

Clue: it can't be answered with scripture-based recitation because Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical was an alternative to what you have rote-learned.

You said that his hypothetical made moral sense to you to a degree.

Tell us more about how and why.

You got your answer.

@kellyjay said
You got your answer.

No, you are wriggling. You said that his hypothetical made moral sense to you to a degree. In what way did it make moral sense to you? You have steadfastly NOT said.

@fmf said
No, you are wriggling. You said that his hypothetical made moral sense to you to a degree. In what way did it make moral sense to you? You have steadfastly NOT said.

Your failure to grasp of the implications of what was said is on you.

@kellyjay said
Your failure to grasp of the implications of what was said is on you.

What I am grasping quite easily here is the way you are refusing to say in what way Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical made moral sense to you. I grasp without any difficulty all the religious dogma you are plastering your evasive posts with. I am familiar with it. I am more interested in your answer to the question.

@fmf said
What I am grasping quite easily here is the way you are refusing to say in what way Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical made moral sense to you. I grasp without any difficulty all the religious dogma you are plastering your evasive posts with. I am familiar with it. I am more interested in your answer to the question.

His means of looking at right and wrong is an ever changing one, not static.
Hopefully you can see what that means by what I said earlier.

@kellyjay said
His means of looking at right and wrong is an ever changing one, not static.
Hopefully you can see what that means by what I said earlier.

In what way did Ghost of Duke's hypothetical make moral sense to you? You said that it did. How so?

@kellyjay said
You got your answer.

Where?

@kellyjay said
The scales of human 'good' are always in a state of flux, what one generation finds good the next could call evil.

This isn't so with God, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever more. When God is called good it is because that is what God is, and has never been anything else and will never be anything else.

Based on these two cuts from your post above, let me ask you these two questions and see if you are willing to respond...

1) Has there ever been a time in the history of mankind’s “flux” of their regard of what is good and what is evil, that men thought that burning people alive for eternity was “good”
Yes or no?

And since god never changes he must always have considered the burning alive of his enemies to be “good” and will always consider it to be so.

2) How do you reconcile your answer to question one with your claim that your version of god is “good” and expect people to find your version of god attractive?

@divegeester said
Where?

FMF: "... does Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical make any moral sense to you?"

KJ: "From a purely humanistic way sure, but bottom line that makes it one of complete failure, scripturally speaking. A good God one who is just, righteous, purely good without any taint of evil within, nothing corrupt in it, could accept anything not good that was evil and wicked. Allowing evil to live and thrive would mean God isn't good and that which is perfect would never be anything but perfect."

Funny, this looks exactly like an answer to me.

@suzianne said
FMF: "... does Ghost of a Duke's hypothetical make any moral sense to you?"

KJ: "From a purely humanistic way sure, but bottom line that makes it one of complete failure, scripturally speaking. A good God one who is just, righteous, purely good without any taint of evil within, nothing corrupt in it, could accept anything not good that was evil and wicked. Allowing evi ...[text shortened]... perfect would never be anything but perfect."

Funny, this looks exactly like an answer to me.

He asks questions and refuses to look at the answers, and asks them again and again.