Infinite Nature of Sin and Hell

[Solo]

Your definition is the right definition. Your understanding of righteousness and goodness is faulty without including the creator God's character of righteousness and goodness. Jesus says that there is none that are good, no not one. Isaiah says that man's righteousness is as filthy rags. As I have stated, you are presenting a faulty premise on your definition of righteousness and goodness, and it falls way short of the truth as revealed to us by the creator God. All else is a waste of time.

You contradict yourself. First, you admit that my dictionary definition of the word 'virtue' is the right definition, but then you state that the definition is incorrect unless we add some element of your god. Yet the dictionary definition includes nothing about your god at all.

So, which is it? Is the dictionary definition right or wrong?

If it is correct, then there is no need to discuss your god at all. Mankind can be virtuous without being Christian.

If it is incorrect, then why can't I find a single dictionary definition of the word 'virtue' that includes the Christian god?

You need to learn how to read my friend. Your definition of righteousness and goodness is faulty. The definition that you posted for virtue is correct.

 

[Guest]

You need to learn how to read my friend. Your definition of righteousness and goodness is faulty. The definition that you posted for virtue is correct.

We'll go back to my own definition of righteousness and goodness in a second. Let's stay on the current topic.

You have stated that the definition that I posted for virtue is correct. Therefore, you agree that man can be virtuous without the Christian god, as the Christian god is not included in the dictionary definition. Glad to see we are in agreement.

 

[Solo]

You need to learn how to read my friend. Your definition of righteousness and goodness is faulty. The definition that you posted for virtue is correct.

We'll go back to my own definition of righteousness and goodness in a second. Let's stay on the current topic.

You have stated that the definition that I posted for virtue is correct. Therefore, you agree that man can be virtuous without the Christian god, as the Christian god is not included in the dictionary definition. Glad to see we are in agreement.

Man can only be virtuous in the scope of God's righteousness and goodness. Apart from having God dwelling inside of one, there is no such thing as a virtuous man. Virtue is non-existant in man apart from God's indwelling presence. All who believe that there is virtue apart from God is deceived.

 

[Guest]

Man can only be virtuous in the scope of God's righteousness and goodness. Apart from having God dwelling inside of one, there is no such thing as a virtuous man. Virtue is non-existant in man apart from God's indwelling presence. All who believe that there is virtue apart from God is deceived.

Errr, now you say that the definition is incorrect because it doesn't include your god. But you just said it was correct! Why is it that you are unable or unwilling to make up your mind? I'll ask one more time. This is the dictionary definition of 'virtue':

vir·tue (vûrch) n. 1. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.

Is this definition correct or incorrect?

Hint: Your answer can only be one of these two choices, by definition.

 

[Solo]

Man can only be virtuous in the scope of God's righteousness and goodness. Apart from having God dwelling inside of one, there is no such thing as a virtuous man. Virtue is non-existant in man apart from God's indwelling presence. All who believe that there is virtue apart from God is deceived.

Errr, now you say that the definition is incorrect because it doesn't include your god. But you just said it was correct! Why is it that you are unable or unwilling to make up your mind? I'll ask one more time. This is the dictionary definition of 'virtue':

vir·tue (vûrch) n. 1. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.

Is this definition correct or incorrect?

Hint: Your answer can only be one of these two choices, by definition.

You are having a comprehension problem, friend. Virtue is as you have defined it, however your understaning of righteousness and goodness is flawed, therefore your understanding of true virtue is lacking. Even though you define virtue correctly, your understanding of virtue is flawed because you do not understand God's Righteousness and God's goodness. When you come to understand God's Righeousness and God's Goodness, then you will understand true virtue. Until then you are blowing with whatever wind of doctrine comes your way, today one way, tomorrow another. Simple.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I am only coy to you because I know the truth of God being the creator and the only God, and you want to believe that there are a myriad of Gods. When you come to know the truth, you and I can have a real conversation, but until then you will bounce here to there with whatever blows your dress up. Hopefully, God will contact you one day with his truth, and you will believe. Until then pray your butt off.

What a convincing argument :roll: When and if Cosmo comes to believe what you do, then you can have a discussion :

(Until then, I guess, we'll just have to assume you have no reasonable rebuttal of his points?)

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I am only coy to you because I know the truth of God being the creator and the only God, and you want to believe that there are a myriad of Gods. When you come to know the truth, you and I can have a real conversation, but until then you will bounce here to there with whatever blows your dress up. Hopefully, God will contact you one day with his truth, and you will believe. Until then pray your butt off.[/quote]

Wow. What an argument. I'm convinced. Oh wait this muslim guy is saying the exact same thing as you, wait this hindu guy is also saying the same thing, oh this mormon guy is saying that they've all had a real conversion to the true god. Maybe NONE of you have had a real experience of god but only an emotional/psychological experience that you MISTAKE for god.

 

[Solo]

I am only coy to you because I know the truth of God being the creator and the only God, and you want to believe that there are a myriad of Gods. When you come to know the truth, you and I can have a real conversation, but until then you will bounce here to there with whatever blows your dress up. Hopefully, God will contact you one day with his truth, and you will believe. Until then pray your butt off.

Wow. What an argument. I'm convinced. Oh wait this muslim guy is saying the exact same thing as you, wait this hindu guy is also saying the same thing, oh this mormon guy is saying that they've all had a real conversion to the true god. Maybe NONE of you have had a real experience of god but only an emotional/psychological experience that you MISTAKE for god.

Well take your choice bubba, Jesus, Mohammed Buddha Nirvana paganism humanism moronism; It is your choice. Listen to the truth or swallow a lie. Your choice.

PS I'll fix your inability to quote properly as well.

 

[Solo]

I am only coy to you because I know the truth of God being the creator and the only God, and you want to believe that there are a myriad of Gods. When you come to know the truth, you and I can have a real conversation, but until then you will bounce here to there with whatever blows your dress up. Hopefully, God will contact you one day with his truth, and you will believe. Until then pray your butt off.

What a convincing argument :roll: When and if Cosmo comes to believe what you do, then you can have a discussion :

(Until then, I guess, we'll just have to assume you have no reasonable rebuttal of his points?)

You and Cosmo can discuss. You both are on the same page. I'll be there to help when you need assistance. Just PM me and I'll teach you both the truth from God's Word. Until then, just enjoy each others company. :D

 

[BradtheImpaler]

God created us. Lets say you created a computer program. It had super good AI. But it got a virus, so you deleted it. Isnt it well within your rights to do so?

You don't see any difference between disposing of a computer program and disposing of living, feeling, sentinent human beings? They are equally disposable to you? Wolfman, I think there's a religious "virus" you may be infected with that is clouding your mind and heart. I was afflicted with it also for many years. Lay aside the pat, cliched apologetic responses a moment and think on the implications of the analogy you just drew.

Perhaps you will have the same revelation I had :angel:

 

[D46]

1 Corinthians 16:22 (KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. :-?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

You and Cosmo can discuss. You both are on the same page. I'll be there to help when you need assistance. Just PM me and I'll teach you both the truth from God's Word. Until then, just enjoy each others company. :D

But Solo, we need assistance NOW. We need for you to give sensible answers to the questions at hand, or at least for you to attempt to. Your "exit, stage left" does nothing but reinforce our suspicion that your religious convictions are unreasonable, if not altogether absurd.

What I am most curious about is why did you jump in this thread in the first place when you knew you had nothing to say? :fadein:

 

[Guest]

You are having a comprehension problem, friend. Virtue is as you have defined it, however your understaning of righteousness and goodness is flawed, therefore your understanding of true virtue is lacking. Even though you define virtue correctly, your understanding of virtue is flawed because you do not understand God's Righteousness and God's goodness. When you come to understand God's Righeousness and God's Goodness, then you will understand true virtue. Until then you are blowing with whatever wind of doctrine comes your way, today one way, tomorrow another. Simple.

Logical fallacies you commit in this post: No True Scotsman, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority

I fail to see any comprehension issue on my part, only your apparent inability to respond to a simple question.

In an earlier post, I pointed out direct consequences of your agreement or disagreement with the dictionary definition of the word 'virtue'. You did not like either consequence, therefore you waffle, fritter, and generally avoid the point. I've seen this behavior before - it's the end result of someone who is not willing to take his beliefs to their logical conclusions. I do not envy you.

 

[Guest]

Well take your choice bubba, Jesus, Mohammed Buddha Nirvana paganism humanism moronism; It is your choice. Listen to the truth or swallow a lie. Your choice.

PS I'll fix your inability to quote properly as well.

Logical fallacies you commit in this post: No True Scotsman, Ad Hominem

You're not even trying anymore, are you? You're just throwing fallacies around in an attempt to avoid answering. I do not envy your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Solo]

Well take your choice bubba, Jesus, Mohammed Buddha Nirvana paganism humanism moronism; It is your choice. Listen to the truth or swallow a lie. Your choice.

PS I'll fix your inability to quote properly as well.

Logical fallacies you commit in this post: No True Scotsman, Ad Hominem

You're not even trying anymore, are you? You're just throwing fallacies around in an attempt to avoid answering. I do not envy your intellectual dishonesty.

I can see that you must have made a dismal grade in critical thinking 101. Don't worry about it too much, some folks never do get a handle on critical thinking as you so wondrously have shown.

 

[Guest]

I can see that you must have made a dismal grade in critical thinking 101. Don't worry about it too much, some folks never do get a handle on critical thinking as you so wondrously have shown.

Logical fallacies you commit in this post: Ad hominem

If you are no longer interested in answering my questions, simply say so. I won't be annoyed or angry. But just hanging around to throw out insults and logical fallacies is, at best, disingenuous. Until then, I await an honest response on my points.

 

[Solo]

I can see that you must have made a dismal grade in critical thinking 101. Don't worry about it too much, some folks never do get a handle on critical thinking as you so wondrously have shown.

Logical fallacies you commit in this post: Ad hominem

If you are no longer interested in answering my questions, simply say so. I won't be annoyed or angry. But just hanging around to throw out insults and logical fallacies is, at best, disingenuous. Until then, I await an honest response on my points.

Your position was one attacking me under the guise of critical thinking fallacies, while I answered your questions that without having God indwelling one, one cannot be virtuous as dictated by God's righteousness and God's goodness. This answer cannot be given in any simpler manner than that. Just because it doesn't give creedence to your position, which is faulty, you berate and attack as you see able. That my friend is ad hominem. Your whole precept is a strawman.

 

[Guest]

I can see that you must have made a dismal grade in critical thinking 101. Don't worry about it too much, some folks never do get a handle on critical thinking as you so wondrously have shown.

Logical fallacies you commit in this post: Ad hominem

If you are no longer interested in answering my questions, simply say so. I won't be annoyed or angry. But just hanging around to throw out insults and logical fallacies is, at best, disingenuous. Until then, I await an honest response on my points.

Your position was one attacking me under the guise of critical thinking fallacies, while I answered your questions that without having God indwelling one, one cannot be virtuous as dictated by God's righteousness and God's goodness. This answer cannot be given in any simpler manner than that. Just because it doesn't give creedence to your position, which is faulty, you berate and attack as you see able. That my friend is ad hominem. Your whole precept is a strawman.

Fine, then let's get back to the topic and I can make my conclusion.

Your basic theory - that I cannot be virtuous without believing in your god - is a classic example of begging the question, one of the baser logical fallacies. I attempted to point this out, but you either did not understand or did not accept my position. In my opinion, your entire argument, being based upon a logical fallacy, is wholly invalid and rather unoriginal.

You'll read this post and you'll either:

A) Pity me, that I remain 'unsaved' to your god (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion), or
B) Accuse me of being unable to comprehend justice or virtue without believing in your god (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority and Begging the Question), or
C) Throw a character attack at me, like your most recent example of 'failing critical thinking 101' (Logical Fallacy: Ad hominem), or
D) Some combination of these.

You offer nothing new, nothing that I haven't seen before. I do not dislike discussion with you because you are a Christian - no, far from it. I dislike discussion with you because you commit logical fallacies, do not care to participate in an honest debate, and are thoroughly unwilling to entertain the possibility that my argument could be true - regardless of how "unlikely" it may be. In short, you yourself would be the one failing critical thinking 101.

 

[Solo]

I can see that you must have made a dismal grade in critical thinking 101. Don't worry about it too much, some folks never do get a handle on critical thinking as you so wondrously have shown.

Logical fallacies you commit in this post: Ad hominem

If you are no longer interested in answering my questions, simply say so. I won't be annoyed or angry. But just hanging around to throw out insults and logical fallacies is, at best, disingenuous. Until then, I await an honest response on my points.

Your position was one attacking me under the guise of critical thinking fallacies, while I answered your questions that without having God indwelling one, one cannot be virtuous as dictated by God's righteousness and God's goodness. This answer cannot be given in any simpler manner than that. Just because it doesn't give creedence to your position, which is faulty, you berate and attack as you see able. That my friend is ad hominem. Your whole precept is a strawman.

Fine, then let's get back to the topic and I can make my conclusion.

Your basic theory - that I cannot be virtuous without believing in your god - is a classic example of begging the question, one of the baser logical fallacies. I attempted to point this out, but you either did not understand or did not accept my position. In my opinion, your entire argument, being based upon a logical fallacy, is wholly invalid and rather unoriginal.

You'll read this post and you'll either:

A) Pity me, that I remain 'unsaved' to your god (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion), or
B) Accuse me of being unable to comprehend justice or virtue without believing in your god (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority and Begging the Question), or
C) Throw a character attack at me, like your most recent example of 'failing critical thinking 101' (Logical Fallacy: Ad hominem), or
D) Some combination of these.

You offer nothing new, nothing that I haven't seen before. I do not dislike discussion with you because you are a Christian - no, far from it. I dislike discussion with you because you commit logical fallacies, do not care to participate in an honest debate, and are thoroughly unwilling to entertain the possibility that my argument could be true - regardless of how "unlikely" it may be. In short, you yourself would be the one failing critical thinking 101.

Cosmo,
When you are on bended knee telling all within earshot that Jesus is Lord, then you will understand the point that man is not righteous and man is not good, therefore man has no virtue apart from Jesus Christ. You can tag this any way that you want, but the bottom line is, that this is a Christian forum, and if you can not include that portion of reality into your argument, then you are lacking. You may want to try and find a place where you can argue philisophical arguments apart from a Christian perspective in another forum that is not a Christian forum.

ALL MANKIND will bow and say that Jesus is Lord just before admission to eternal life, or eternal punishment at the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Guest]

Cosmo,
When you are on bended knee telling all within earshot that Jesus is Lord, then you will understand the point that man is not righteous and man is not good, therefore man has no virtue apart from Jesus Christ. You can tag this any way that you want, but the bottom line is, that this is a Christian forum, and if you can not include that portion of reality into your argument, then you are lacking. You may want to try and find a place where you can argue philisophical arguments apart from a Christian perspective in another forum that is not a Christian forum.

ALL MANKIND will bow and say that Jesus is Lord just before admission to eternal life, or eternal punishment at the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Wow! Let's see here...

I see at least one of each type of logical fallacy I named in my previous post. If this is your conclusion, I commend you for going all out! More interestingly, I predicted quite accurately your response ahead of time. Does this mean I'm psychic? I wonder if I could make money doing this... :smt082 :smt081