₦airaland Forum

^^ I haven't seen the video yet although I think I have an idea what it's about, since I've been following the discussion here. I'll try to watch it later. Enjoy!

davidylan: and i suppose you prefer pseudo-science for totally empirically sound reasons right? Yeah color me naive.
[size=16pt]Religious belief/faith is a subjective matter. It is not and has never been dependent on logic or reason.[/size] The burden of proof is on you to show how science totally invalidates the faith-based belief system.

@Mr_Anony: Take note (from a fellow Christian).

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I could also say that the person who is submitting is being humble.[/quote]Come on now, this is incorrect. Sometimes, it is better to admit to one's inability to explain certain things and everyone will understand. This type of comment is what we'll always get when religionists feel the urge to defend their religious texts by all means.

The Old Testament God is evidently different from the one in the New Testament. Many Christians would deny this, and this is understandable, as believing such would negate all they have always deemed their reality. But if the Christian maintains that his God is one and the same and never changes, the only other explanation we can possibly proffer for his incongruous behaviour throughout the bible is that this God suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder.

The following (short) video explains this seeming disorder that the God of the bible is suspected to have. In reality, he acts like different people, because he really was different people.

[flash=450,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg[/flash]

The book, A History of God by Karen Armstrong, explains even more. You can download the PDF version from here: http://www.2shared.com/document/29Cel-VI/A_History_of_God.html

Lord Babs: Because your god doesn't have an email address nor a phone contact. On the incredible note, he's not on facebook, twitter and my ever-loving nairaland. I contacted my associate in the FBI, and she said your god's name was not found on their data base. It beats me hard why some cretins still believe in ghost-like-fairy-tales!

wiegraf beat me to it. . .lol. God is on Facebook and Twitter, and guess what? He has an incredible sense of humour too!

You should Like and Follow him as I do!

MyJoe: It is only a basis to recognise that the commandment has limited application in an imperfect world.

Exactly my point.

And I agree with the rest of your post. We're pretty much on the same page, I believe.

Have a good evening, sire!

MyJoe: Having a selfish motive for our actions is something we cannot get away from. But actions are motivated by selfish motives to varying degrees. People act out of selfish motives. People also do act for purely altruistic reasons. People do things for others when there is no benefit to themselves. To suggest that the satisfaction to be derived is a pre-thought while embarking on the act in the majority of the cases we consider altruistic is misguided. Even if it were, I do not think that satisfaction is sufficient to erode the quality of the act of love.

I kind of agree with you here, except for the bold part. Maybe you could list a few examples of acts carried our for purely altruistic reasons and let's examine them critically.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure that I really suggested that satisfactions to be derived are often pre-thought. As a matter of fact, I believe that many people often do good without any expectations of reward or benefits of any kind. I know that I certainly do. My point is just that at the end of the day, the subconscious? motive may just be that inner good feeling it gives us ultimately. It certainly doesn't take away from the goodness of the act though.

MyJoe: Logicboy had no point. At least, no logical point. As Enigma observed, the words were addressed to a familiar audience. Even if we consider that there would have been passersby, relatives of disciples and curious non-believers, and that the words were meant for all since Jesus is said to have been sent to all, logicboy’s thesis would still be illogical. During these language classes of mine, the teacher would come to the class and ask us to “chat with your neighbour”. Now, it would be out of place to challenge the teacher or her instruction on the basis that there was someone who woke up with acute laryngitis and so could not chat or someone with bad breath who’s chat would be unwelcome by his neighbour.

The teacher’s request was contemplated with the “normal” student in mind. The abnormal or special student would have to be dealt with specially. While this is not a perfect example, I believe it conveys the point perfectly. Instructions are given with “normal” or “everyday” people in mind. Attacking an instruction to love your neighbour on the basis that there are mentally ill people in the world of the type we don’t want their love is, I think, plain silly.

He had a logical point. Even if the words of Jesus were truly addressed to a familiar audience at the time, today, it has become some sort of universal admonition which we're all expected to live by. Note that I neither challenged nor attacked the teaching, as can be seen in my admission that I consider it to be a sound teaching. I was only pointing out how impossible it is to expect everyone to live by those words, because love is a subjective emotion that is expressed differently, some even bordering on the drastic. The suicide bomber who blows himself to pieces for the love of Allah and himself clearly has an idea of love that is vastly different from yours and mine. Call him brainwashed or whatnot, it's moot here. My point? The fact that some people do what we "normal" people would consider "horrible", does not mean that they are "mentally ill". As good as it sounds, I certainly won't be preaching to the suicide bomber to love his neighbour as himself. And I don't expect that you would either.

Using your analogy, even if the teacher's request was contemplated with the "normal" students in mind, it still does not take away from the fact that the request is not totally practicable because there are still people present there who are "special", and thus unable to carry out her request.

wiegraf: There are probably many reasons of course, in my opinion the best is how he plays the abusive spouse. You are not worthy of his love. You are flawed and pathetic, but he still loves you. You do not know what's best, but stick to him and everything will be alright. Do not trust anyone else, you really are worthless and they'll seek to use and destroy you. But don't worry, as I'm so much better than you, and them, I'll protect you, everything will be fine if you follow me. If you break my rules, I will punish you, but it will be for your own good.
Many women eventually freed from abusive relationships should relate, I would imagine. Many others continue to remain in the relationship despite years of physical and mental abuse. Quite a few even think it's normal behaviour. At the very bottom, you have those that actually encourage it.

This is quite true, and your entire submission is accurately depicted in this picture:

https://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/031-a-Relationship-with-God-650x511.jpg

Lol. This reminds me of a movie I saw some 3 years back: God on Trial; and another shitty one I saw recently: Suing The Devil.


@OP: You may want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God

Good luck!

Hi caezar,

caezar: Watershed! Sort of.

You still fail to see that the first cause IS self-existent. The two terms are essentially synonymous.

hmm. . . the ad hoc hypothesis at play here.

If the first cause can be classified as "something", do you not consider your claim here to be self-contradictory? Like an oxymoron? A logical impossibility of some sort? Consider this argument:

1) Something exists
1) First Cause is "something"
2) Something cannot come from nothing.
Ergo,
4) First Cause (being something) cannot come from nothing
(In other words, First Cause came from something.)

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Na true my brother this is fruitless. I'm outta this thread. Funny thing is after giving all that advice, I got drawn back in (oh hypocrite that I am. lol)

@Purist and co. He that hath ears let him hear.

Goodbye

Un-follows thread[/quote]It has suddenly become "fruitless" because you and your friends have failed to demonstrate how your god is different from other gods out there, and why he should be regarded as a moral authority at all.

Anyways, is morality possible without an authoritative source? Answer: YES!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I don't agree with you especially as regards the context of God being a moral judge. As long as when God wanted to judge evil, he didn't side His friends, He is an impartial judge.
He even blessed the Esau that He "hated" and wasn't unjust to him. What exactly is your big problem with God's justice?[/quote]I don't have any problem with your god's "justice". I'm simply pointing out to you that he's no different from Allah and the rest that you deride.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, God doesn't profess undying love for chickens.
But anyway, assuming you loved chickens, it wouldn't be out of place if you killed or quarantined the diseased ones so that the others can live healthy. the point is that the chicken does not have the right to question your decisions because it doesn't know any better.[/quote]If I were omnipotent, I wouldn't need to kill or quarantine the diseased chickens, I would simply make them as healthy as the others.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Not so fast, you have not yet shown anyone who God wrongfully punished. Your little rant is baseless. God is merciful and just.[/quote]But I have shown you someone that God hated for no reason. Okay, in Numbers 31, we read of Yahweh's commandment to Moses to kill all Midianites. The Israelites were sympathetic though, and they spared the lives of the women and children. But when Moses found out, he was enraged and he ordered them (under God's commandment of course) to kill all the boys and kill every woman who had slept with a man (vs 17), and save for themselves all the virgins (vs 18). Now, if you can tell me the offense of these latter victims (the children especially) that God ordered them to be killed, maybe I may begin to see things from your perspective.

Also, a merciful and just God doesn't go about hardening people's heart just to boost his own ego. Your own god, however, is guilty of that.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]No he didn't change his values, you only became more mature so he stopped using the cane.[/quote]No, he changed his values. He initially believed in being forceful and aggressive to drive home his point (corporal punishment), but had a change of heart eventually and decided to go softer.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The Spirit of God is not sujective at all. As for your experiment, You have the early church as an example of a bibleless church .............and it thrived. In fact, christianity was spread by christians without no bibles.

It is the Spirit that quickens and not the letter.[/quote]The Spirit of God is subjective. Isn't that why Christianity is often touted as a "personal relationship"?? Of course, Christianity was spread without no bibles. The swords did the job just fine.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]God will not let him kill his father in the end (refer to Abraham/Isaac sacrifice)[/quote]Okay

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Sin is going against God's nature. If God tells you to kill your father for no reason, God would have gone against His nature.[/quote]How about if there's a reason? Such as, to test his faith?

caezar: Really? Perhaps I 'misread' his intent when Purist said:


Or your intent when you derided us 'Christian apologists' as people suffering from 'cognitive dissonance' and so more willing to embrace 'illogicalities' than your version of the truth.

Perhaps I misunderstood it all. Perhaps all this 'logic' is doing my head in.

If you cannot see why I asked if you were trolling, then sorry, I can't help you. I apologize if you feel insulted though. No hard feelings, bruv.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]We may never know exactly why God hated Esau before he was born but one thing I'd like us to know is that God is omniscient and can see the end from the beginning. besides, God still blessed Esau his enemy with a "multitude of material blessings", He just didn't have the same close relationship with him as He (God) had with Jacob.

As for the Israelites, the land Israel was occupying was the land God promised He would give them after they had wiped out all the Canaanites by the time the cup of their sins would be full (Genesis 15:16). When Israel sinned, God would send the Assyrians to destroy them. Israel had a relationship with God but God was never partial towards them in judgment. lets be careful not to drift away from the question of God as a moral Judge to God as a provider.[/quote]Agreed, God punished the Israelites sometimes, but more often than not, he sided with them and favoured them over all others. They were his chosen people. They were his "favourites". He also hated Esau for no reason. God was/is partial.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]God is omnipotent creator and we can't question His purposes simply because to do that, we have to have just as much knowledge and power as He has i.e. to judge God, we must be equal to or greater than God. A chicken cannot judge your morality over why you chose to kill one chicken for dinner and leave the other. It is only a fellow man or a greater being that qualifies to judge your choice of dinner.[/quote]Unlike God, I don't profess undying love for chickens.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]This is all just you creating your own meaning for scripture. The bible says that no evildoer will inherit the kingdom of God. The context in which Paul was speaking is that you cannot be good on your own, you need the grace and mercy of God but I can see how you could easily misread it.[/quote]That's the beauty of the scripture, innit? We can all create our own meanings, so far it suits us well. The bible says that no evildoer will inherit the kingdom of God, but the same also says that God decides whom he shows mercy whenever he wants and cannot be questioned. Thus, we could argue that if God can hate and punish people even when they have done absolutely no wrong (meaning, you could still land in hell fire no matter how born again you are), he may very well choose to accept even the most evil of men into his kingdom. He works in mysterious ways; who are you to question him?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The laws were literal laws. But then again, this does not show God's nature to have changed any more than if your father used to flog you to make you go to bed early until it became your habit when you grew older and he stopped talking about it. It doesn't mean that your dad now thinks that late nights are good for you it's just that he feels you are now mature enough to know what you are doing. (see Galatians 4:1-7)[/quote]If my father used to flog me for wrongdoing, then he stopped and started having heart-to-heart discussions with me instead, I believe everyone including yourself would agree that he has changed.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I have never claimed that the bible is word-for-word perfect, what I claim is that the message of bible is the true and perfect word of God.
When someone leaves the Spirit of the Word and focuses on the letter, the person is bound to run into error.
It is the Spirit that matters. I am very sure that even if all the bibles in the world were destroyed today, People will still get born again and be led by the Spirit. So perfectly will they live that it would be as if they were indeed reading from the bible. The first Christians had no bible and yet the Church grew and the hand of God was upon them.

Before you read between the lines, ensure that you have already read what is written on the lines themselves.[/quote]Problem is, the spirit is way too subjective to be reckoned with. There seems to be multiple Holy Spirits because everyone gets spoken to by the spirit, even when their interpretations are worlds apart. Therefore, we are only left with the "letter" to analyze objectively. I wish there was a way that we could try out your experiment though - destroy all bibles and see how many people still become Christians, much less, born-again.

caezar: I started off by challenging Purist simply:
He said that Christ's sacrifice was trivial. I challenged him to make an equally 'trivial' sacrifice. He expectedly asked for, as did you, a reward for his sacrifice. I pointed out that Christ's sacrifice was without reward for Himself but for us. He then came full circle to acknowledge that, being a mere mortal man, he is unable to see the sense in such a sacrifice (and it follows therefore, that he is unable to make such a 'senseless' sacrifice).

You just successfully attacked a straw man. Clap for yourself.

Now to the main point: Contrary to what you just submitted, I did not ask for a reward for the sacrifice. I simply asked to be reinstated to my previous super-glorious position once I've carried out the assignment. Do you get it now?

The point is this: I do not consider the sacrifice on the cross a big deal because the person purportedly carrying out the sacrifice still got to "wake up" after 3 days; he got a second chance at life. Not only that, he also got all his previously stripped powers and glory and honour given back to him (and I dare say in multiple folds). The whole pain, humiliation, suffering and death he endured were transient and absolutely nothing compared to what was to come. Given those exact conditions, I'm willing to bet that we would find roughly 7 billion people here on earth willing to "sacrifice" themselves in like manner.

^^ lol, are you trolling or what?

caezar: Read my post above. The reward of Christ's sacrifice is ours to devour.

So in essence, after being incarcerated for 3 days and subsequently freeing 100 guilty prisoners from Kiri-kiri, I get to return to being the World President that I used to be. Tell me again how that seems to be such a grand heroic act worthy of accolades.

By the way, vicarious redemption makes very little sense (if at all).

caezar: Oya now come make I put you for kiri kiri. No fear, after 3 days I go release you!

Do I get to rule the entire universe afterwards?

cyrexx: actually, they are not being deliberatley dishonest, they are soldiers of Christ who would rather see all men as liars than see the errors and irreconcilable contradictions in their bible. They would do anything to justify their faith. they are faithfully following this scripture

Roman 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

and this
Roman3:7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

have you seen muslims too when they argue, their own is worst. they defend their religion like jihadists, similar to these soldiers of christ.

You're so right. It is unimaginable for the religious mind to accept that their God is not the embodiment of "perfection" that they have always been made to believe he is. Cognitive dissonance often follows upon this realization, but the religious mind, rather than discard the entire notion altogether, often finds a way around the discrepancy, even in the face of illogicalities. After all, God cannot possibly be wrong; it's just we mere mortals that do not understand the things of the spirit.

The muslims? We better not go there.

@ Mr_Anony,

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I really shouldn't be replying to this but I feel I've been accused of dishonesty so I'll attempt to clear my name. I still hold the stance that God never changes and is forever the same. What you saw of Jesus Christ is exactly who God would be if He was a man.
Now to Romans 9, Is God partial?
Good question: we are currently debating on something of that nature in more detail on this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/996184/grace-destiny-vs-freewill-brethren (things get really interesting from around the second page)

That aside, I still want let you know that impartiality does not mean that a judge cannot have "favorites" but it is how he treats his "favorites" in judgement that determines if he is impartial or not.(remember the argument is on judgment of moral issues and not who God is blessing more than the other)

For instance a judge loves his wife and kids more than everyone else, he is not a partial judge for doing so. He is only a partial judge if when his children come before him in court, he acquits them while punishing those who are not his children.

God punishes sin and if you read the bible you'll see that on many occasions, He punished his favorites the israelites (Jacob) whenever they sinned just like he also punished the heathen nations. When it comes to judgment, God has no favorites.

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy": This brings us back to #6 God's unwavering nature (not to be confused with His permissiveness). The fact that God is going to have mercy here indicates that the offender has already failed and is worthy of condemnation. God is not saying that the offender has not offended but that He (God) is choosing to forgive.[/quote]Maybe if you could tell me Esau's crime that he deserved to be hated, I may have a change of perspective. This is not just about favourites (although I still wonder why an Almighty would have "favourites" among things he created "equally". Sounds very human if you ask me. Oh, I forgot, we were made in his image; or is it the other way round? Never mind. ). It's about the way he treats them, even in judgment. From OT accounts, Yahweh always treated the adversaries of Israel with disdain, in which vulnerable children and women were often the victims. Sometimes, they (Israeli) deliberately set out to make enemies for themselves with Yahweh's full backing.

I also disagree with your interpretation of Yahweh's "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy". The succeeding verses suggest that this is barely a matter of forgiveness that you mentioned, but instead, one of absolute arbitrariness by virtue of being the Almighty.

Rom 9 vs 16-18:

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

I also see this to mean that even when you have done absolutely nothing wrong, he can still choose to hate and punish you. After all, who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (vs 20). See the example of the Pharaoh here especially, whose sole existence was simply to boost Yahweh's over-sized ego.

In other words, it doesn't matter what you do or don't do right. God decides ultimately (and arbitrarily of course) the fate of any and every man. In essence, the fate of both the believer and the unbeliever remains totally uncertain until God makes up his mind.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The problem with the Jews of that time was that they were focusing on the letter and not the Spirit. It is the same thing a lot of people do today with the bible; they stress the letters and phrases so much that they miss the entire message of grace and salvation.[/quote]This is one part I still fail to get. If the Jews had been commanded not to practise mixed-cropping, not to wear clothes made of certain fabric, to stone witches, wizards and adulterers, forbidden disabled people to go near the altar, to kill homosexuals, etc, are you saying that it was the interpretation of the Jews that was faulty? Are you saying that God never intended these laws to be taken literally? I know you're trying to make a case for God's supposed unchanging nature, but come on now!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is like instead of watching a movie and enjoying it, you pause at every frame looking to spot the shadow of the cameraman or reflections of members of the crew. You miss the entire point of the movie and all you have left are a bunch of "movie mistake scenes" that you can show off to your friends to make you seem smart. Poor you.[/quote]Well, if the impression had been given that every single aspect of the movie production had been perfect, totally without errors, goofs, mistakes and whatnot, I believe it will only stir your curiousity and error-detection radar, wouldn't it? Na so, bruv.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Golden! The sacrifice of Christ was no small feat![/quote]lol. . . there's no big deal about Christ's "sacrifice". If I know I'd resurrect after 3 days, to be seated on some divine throne thereafter, I'd easily "sacrifice" myself also.

I am really struggling to understand all these people claiming here that Yahweh didn't change, but that it was the Jews that didn't understand, and blah blah.

When someone commands certain things years before, and then years later, he changes his stance and says, "No, it's no longer like that, it should be this way now." What do we call that? Are you people arguing for the sake of it? Or are you just being plain dishonest?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Na wa Oh! Una still dey here dey argue??

@Ihedinobi abeg free these people. It is unprofitable debating with someone when the the person is deliberately trying to misunderstand you.
These guys have been arguing with everyone and everything for years over the details of a "fairytale".
You can continue if you like, perhaps you'll break the deadlock.
as for me, personally I have given up on this unnecessary endeavor in this thread as it is now obvious to me thru most of the conversations I've had on this forum that the aim is "stand your ground" and not "let's find the truth".
Cheers.[/quote]That's very funny coming from you. Just about anyone can accuse anyone of the bold part.

You desperately tried to fit in your own God as a moral authority, while stifling other Gods out on the very same basis that your own God disqualifies, and you have the gumption to claim that people are deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Your friend, Ihedinobi, is also a very dishonest debater: playing dumb when called out and outrightly attempting to deny things that are so obvious (just see his last response to Kay17: who does not know what Sabbath means? or that adultery was a crime punishable by stoning?). Honestly, you two are the first set of "Christians" I would see that would deny the DRASTIC change in nature of Yahweh between the OT and the NT. I know the feeling: defend your god at all cost, even if it means lying through your teeth. Been there, done that.

Meanwhile, I feel you should also realize that your god fails to meet your own criteria #5 as seen in Rom 9:10-16 (his own admission in verse 13 especially).

thehomer: All believers know the people their Gods want to destroy. They usually coincide with the people they want to destroy.

Link: https://www.nairaland.com/990487/morality-possible-without-authoritative-source/13#11527943

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You ask for no gimmicks but you ask the question out of context.
The sin here is adultery. The sin today is still adultery and not the stoning. The stoning is the punishment
Find something better[/quote]lol. thanks for proving my point.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]What are we arguing about? Please if you can, please read the thread from the beginning so you can argue in context.
The task was to find a moral standard by which we can say something is good or something is evil. It is not a moral standard to find what is "gooder" and what is "badder". If we do this, we are smack back into the realm of subjective morality which is no morality at all. That is the context in which those criteria were formed.
You are creating a strawman here by arguing over methods instead of what is morally right or morally wrong.

The text is very clear: The wavering shown there is on what is right vs wrong and not how it is punished or rewarded. The bracketed is even there to further clarify exactly what that criteria is.

Please don't change the meaning of the text just to force in your argument or lack thereof.

About what many "Christians" think, that is besides the point. Many christians think many different things.[/quote]I've been following this thread since its inception. You're the one grasping at straws here. Once you've been called out on your fallacious reasoning, you then attempt to give the impression that your opponent has not been following the discussion by telling them to read from the beginning. You've done this a lot of times on this thread (just to let you know that I'm really following), but it won't work this time.

The indubitable fact remains that Yahweh CHANGED in his judgment of situations. His sense of morality kind of evolved. This is a good thing, but it disqualifies him as a moral authority on account of your own criteria. Once, he felt that stoning adulterers was the way to go. Then several years later, he had a re-think and decided to go softer. This is all too glaring for all to see; you absolutely cannot deny this. If that is not "wavering", then you tell me what it is.

Simple question for you (and please, no gimmicks or word play here, just give a straight answer): Was it ever RIGHT to stone adulterers? Is it still RIGHT today?

Also, this is not really about methods and you know it, and even if it were, it still proves my point. You CANNOT deny that God commanded certain things in the Old Testament, but then underwent a drastic change in nature and attitude in the New Testament. You say that the wavering shown there is on what is right vs wrong and not how it is punished or rewarded. I don't think I've really argued otherwise, except to really buttress my points. Yes, while many of the evils still remain the same, the fact remains that God himself has had a change of thought on many other issues, hence the so-called new covenant.

Going by the list you created for your God, he has failed to meet one of them, thus disqualifying him as a moral authority. I am also willing to demonstrate how he failed #5 repeatedly in the bible, but let's settle this one first.

A good one from Mudley313 (slightly modified by me):

Mudley313: After recklessly plagiarizing other ancient pagan religions and customs, and making an extension of the original Judaism, the hypocritical Christian arrogantly makes the RIDICULOUS claim of "not practicing religion" but "a way of life". The Jews think it is RIDICULOUS for the Christians to believe that a poor carpenter who was humiliated and executed like a common thief, was the long awaited messiah. The Christians believe it is RIDICULOUS for the Jews to still be awaiting the Messiah who christians believe has already been here 2000 years ago and his second coming is expected.

The Muslims believe it is RIDICULOUS to claim that a man was a god or that God has a son that is somehow himself and they are three Gods that are somehow One. The christians believe it is RIDICULOUS to believe that some Arabian could come, plagiarize the Jewish scripture, and claim his religion is the one true religion.

The Protestants believe it is RIDICULOUS to pray to God or Jesus through Mary who was only human and worship graven images of her. The Catholics think it is RIDICULOUS for the Protestants to criticize them as false teachings for it was Catholics who actually compiled the Bible itself that the Protestants use against them. The Christians think it is RIDICULOUS for the Mormons to believe that some man called Joseph Smith was visited by angels and given some writings in tablets, when there are more ridiculous stories of man seeing the back of God himself in their so-called holy book.

The Christians think it is RIDICULOUS to believe in so-called barbaric and inferior African religions, while ignoring all the barbaric acts that litter their Bible. The traditionalists believe it is RIDICULOUS to believe in the religion of white men who came to loot your land, enslave you and brand you inferior... and so on and so forth.

The Rationalists just believe that these contradictory beliefs are all RIDICULOUS.

Link: https://www.nairaland.com/448422/what-wrong-religion#6068163

[quote author=Mr_Anony]On the contrary, that is exactly why it meets criteria 6. Good is still good, evil is still evil. All that has been lifted is the punishments for evil need not be carried out within the time period of one's lifetime.

6.It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)

For instance if the government for whatever reasons says that cases of theft will no longer be punished immediately but that criminals will be given the grace period of one month to make amends and return what they stole, failure to do which, they will now be arrested. It doesn't automatically legalize theft. It is simply a grace period. That's the difference between changing the law and the law's permissiveness.[/quote]@bold part: In other words, God CHANGED his methods. Exactly why he fails criteria #6.

Your analogy does not fit. If a government decided a particular punishment for a particular crime 20 years ago, and today, they decide that the punishment is no longer a good method, but instead, define a new kind of method to curtail the crime, wouldn't we be right to say that the government has changed/wavered? Wouldn't we say that the government has become softer or more cruel, depending on the nature of the law they have now come up with?

"what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa"

It was once good to stone adulterers as commanded by God. Today, it's an evil thing to do, as exemplified by Jesus (God). There has been a change. Criteria #6 has not been met.


And about trinity, it's not even a settled issue within Christianity. Many other Christians will vehemently disagree with your "three person relationship" hypothesis.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Fine, finally it seems someone is talking.

Jesus did not come to redefine morals. He came to fulfill the law. Sin is still sin. The only difference is that judgment has been in a sense postponed until after death.[/quote]I didn't say Jesus came to redefine morals. According to the bible, his fulfillment of the law meant that we were no longer bound by the letter of the law, but by the spirit of the law. In essence, certain things that were lawful and permissive under the mosaic law (such as those in the verses cyrexx posted), became no longer permissive in the new dispensation (of grace). In other words, there was a change, there was a wavering. Now, if your list is anything to go by, the Christian God cannot be a true standard for morality since his failure to meet your criteria #6 has been demonstrated.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them. Do you agree?"[/quote]And just as many others have pointed out, the Christian God barely meets these criteria, at least from all we know and read of him; #4, 5, 6 and 7 especially. Also, just about any other God meets criteria #1, 2 and 3. In fact, you only just succeeded - with this list - in lumping your god with every other god out there.