The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[MG 2.0]

You don't know the mind of god, and cannot even be sure that your god is good - by any objective standard. The Israelites slaughtered other tribes at the command of their god, so how can you possibly know if Jim Jones, Pol Pot, and others were following god's commands.

As I said before, you simply choose to ignore (or disparage) evidence that contradicts you, even from your own scriptures. You choose to believe in a god whose characteristics you have invented - your very own subjective standard.

I’ll repeat what I said to Doc. You say, “Your god” as though my god is just another fictitious entity. I understand. The thing is, when a refer to God, I am referring to THE creator God. Your God. The God of the human race. The First Cause. Again, I get it. In your mind the Judaeo Christian God is just one of many gods that have been conceived of in the mind of man. I cannot dissuade you of that notion.

For someone to even consider that a REAL creator God, however, could be anything other than good/loving is beyond me. But I can easily see that point of view taking hold of one’s psyche if that god is lower case. For example, the spaghetti monster god may be a monster of a god.

Zeus and some of those early gods were bad asses also. The million dollar question is whether or not these gods are/were in the same class as a God who may actually be the real deal. The answer is self evident, that is IF the Judaeo Christian God is the real deal, then there IS one God in whom we should worship.

So MANY people throw the baby out with the bath water.

I simply have faith that there is ONE God who created all things. Now, if you have GOOD reason to name a God who is of the creator class that you can really get behind, perceived warts and all, sock it to me baby.

Otherwise, I believe there is only one logical choice. The Bible/Book of Mormon God. The one that LDS leaders testify of.

Unless, of course, I would decide to walk in the shoes of an atheist/agnostic. But that just doesn’t float my boat.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Noah's flood - killed men, women, children, animals of all sorts. Were all, even babies and animals - wicked?

You don't know the mind of god, and cannot even be sure that your god is good - by any objective standard. The Israelites slaughtered other tribes at the command of their god, so how can you possibly know if Jim Jones, Pol Pot, and others were following god's commands.

As I said before, you simply choose to ignore (or disparage) evidence that contradicts you, even from your own scriptures. You choose to believe in a god whose characteristics you have invented - your very own subjective standard.

You are going off the Old Testament for your rationale to disbelieve in God?

Regards,
MG

Not at all. As I think you well know, I don't feel the need to rationalise disbelief in gods. I quite simply don't believe in them - any of the ones that are supposed to exist or have existed. It's not even a choice, as far as I and many others are concerned.

If I mention a god, rest assured it is for the sake of argument, and not a concession to belief in such.

Instead, I'm pointing out flaws in your arguments using scriptural references that you (if you are a believing LDS) are supposed to regard as the word of your god. And until you can specify and justify which parts of the Old Testament and/or New Testament are not translated correctly, I think it is not an honest argument to say that any specific scripture that your church does not revoke is not valid. You are not the arbiter for that.

Furthermore, I'm pointing out that you are making a choice to believe in a god that has characteristics that you have no possible way of verifying. You cannot even know (although, against evidence you can and do choose to believe) that your god is "objectively" good. This god of yours may have well and truly pulled the wool over your eyes, and you wouldn't know it.

You talk about objective standards that your scriptures show your god violating, over and over, and then claiming that others cannot appeal to the scriptures to justify their similar violations, because you think that god doesn't talk to them - again, no evidence or argument other than you just choose to believe in the god you have invented.

So, no - you are the one who is dismissing the Old Testament in order to believe in a god that is to your liking, rather than the one that is described there.

[malkie]

For someone to even consider that a REAL creator God could be only good/loving is beyond me, especially given the scriptures that MG still wants to ignore. And it is immaterial whether the term "god" is given an initial upper or lower case. The grammatical point is irrelevant.

But even if the Old Testament did not exist, I see no a priori reason to suppose that a "REAL creator God" is good.

[dastardly stem]

]

It’s always interesting to point out that it is the non believer who claims rationality while at the same time excluding the evidence of that which the eye cannot see and the ear cannot hear…as though there is only one way to obtain truth.

Setting limits? That’s rational?

Regards,
MG

Inner witness becomes no more than a fallacy of logic if all other evidence contradicts that "evidence of that which the eye cannot see and the ear cannot hear". Individuals, when relying on gur instinct or internal witness could be wrong...severely so. Thus it's a fallacy to so rely.

Additionally many internal witnesses as reported by individuals offer billions of varied claims to truth. It is thus likely unreliable.

[MG 2.0]

]

It’s always interesting to point out that it is the non believer who claims rationality while at the same time excluding the evidence of that which the eye cannot see and the ear cannot hear…as though there is only one way to obtain truth.

Setting limits? That’s rational?

Regards,
MG

Inner witness becomes no more than a fallacy of logic if all other evidence contradicts that "evidence of that which the eye cannot see and the ear cannot hear". Individuals, when relying on gur instinct or internal witness could be wrong...severely so. Thus it's a fallacy to so rely.

Additionally many internal witnesses as reported by individuals offer billions of varied claims to truth. It is thus likely unreliable.

I agree that it is foolhardy to rely exclusively on emotions. They can go with whatever way the wind is blowing. To many folks learn this the hard way.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

… The answer is self evident, that is IF the Judaeo Christian God is the real deal, then there IS one God in whom we should worship….

So, your argument is that IF one assumes the god one believes in is “the real deal”, THEN one can conclude the god one believes in is the god one should worship.

Sorry, no. Beyond the abysmal lack of logic inherent in assuming one’s conclusion, there is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that one’s “real deal” entity deserves to be worshipped more than the “real deal” entity anyone else on the planet assumes and then concludes is real.

And duking it out over which “real deal” is better than anyone else’s “real deal” just avoids the issue: the lack of evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities at all.

Otherwise, I believe there is only one logical choice. The Bible/Book of Mormon. The one that LDS leaders testify of.

So, NOT the judeo Christian god you said above was your choice?

[malkie]

… The answer is self evident, that is IF the Judaeo Christian God is the real deal, then there IS one God in whom we should worship….

So, your argument is that IF one assumes the god one believes in is “the real deal”, THEN one can conclude the god one believes in is the god one should worship.

Sorry, no. Beyond the abysmal lack of logic inherent in assuming one’s conclusion, there is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that one’s “real deal” entity deserves to be worshipped more than the “real deal” entity anyone else on the planet assumes and then concludes is real.

And duking it out over which “real deal” is better than anyone else’s “real deal” just avoids the issue: the lack of evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities at all.

Otherwise, I believe there is only one logical choice. The Bible/Book of Mormon. The one that LDS leaders testify of.

So, NOT the judeo Christian god you said above was your choice?

Amongst other assumptions and choices, it appears that MG has chosen to believe that the "Judaeo-Christian God" and "The one that LDS leaders testify of" are one and the same. Not only that, but he has chosen (sorry if I sound like a broken record on this) to endow this gemish of deities with an idiosyncratic set of attributes that his own scriptures do not support.

[IHAQ]

Would 2.0 allow his wife to be sealed to Nelson? His daughter? Will he consecrate himself to the church and sign over all his property to the church in his last will and testament?

Faith is just a hope or a wish.

You seem to have a fetish towards irrational musings. The question is, would a completely sane person suggest what you have? I think your hatred of the LDS Church and its leaders has gotten the better of you. And I mean that literally.

Your hypotheticals are borderline crazy.

Now, I would expect you’ll treat us to a trip down memory lane…

Regards,
MG

Is that a No you wouldn't, or a Yes you would?

[IHAQ]

It’s an interesting point. At the end of the day the faith that drives suicide bombers to kill is the same as the faith that drove Nephi to lop off Labans head whilst he was passed out drunk. Both felt they were doing their deities bidding. Both have the same chances of being right. The only difference is the team colours. I mean, when you boil it all down and remove the hand waving and smoke and mirrors.

If Nelson issued a call for suicide bombers, would 2.0 answer the call?

So you’re saying that President Nelson would receive revelation from God to kill innocents indiscriminately?

Was Laban an innocent?

Regards,
MG

Is that a No you wouldn't, or a Yes you would?

[Alphus and Omegus]

Suicide bombers can say the same thing 2.0. Nobody can say for sure that God doesn't order suicide bombings. Suicide bombers also look through a glass darkly. They don't completely understand the nature and character of God, there is plenty of room for faith.

Subjectively, your argument would hold water among those that believe killing innocent people indiscriminately is fine and dandy. You’re always going to have some loonies. So yes, suicide bombers could say the same thing as you suggest. Although, truth be told, they seemed rather adamant that their intentions and understandings were very clear. [snip]
Objectively, however, killing innocents is JUST WRONG. By any objective standard.

This is an interesting statement.

In Christianity and in Mormonism, God is the creator of moral standards. Therefore, God could (and in fact did) say there are circumstances in which killing innocent people is good.

The Bible is filled with such stories, including divine commands to Israelites to murder innocent children of their fellow Canaanites, simply because their parents held to the authentic Jewish polytheism. Adults who refused to go along with the erasure of the elohim of El, Baal, and Asherah into the fabricated monotheism of the Yahweh cult were killed and so were their children, by the direct order of El/Yahweh.

And of course, God himself murdered thousands of babies and children in the Global Flood, as declared in Genesis and in the Book of Moses.

In the New Testament, God literally murders a man and his wife (See Acts 5 for the tale of Ananias and Sapphira) for not keeping the communistic practices of the early Christians. Instead of turning over all of their property for redistribution by the church, they withheld some of it and lied. Obviously, not paying a full tithe should not be a capital offense.

These stories are a real problem for the idea that Biblical God is good. I think are only three declarations you can make in response:

1) The stories about Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal are not all true.
2) Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal is not infinitely just.
3) Yahweh/Elohim/El/Jehovah/Baal's acts and commands to murder innocent people were just.

I personally believe the first two conclusions. What do you say?