I heard you guys were looking for a new Christian to help answer any questions

[Baruch]

I have experience with G-d, but it isn't a god you would like.  I don't have to prove what I ate for lunch ... I just eat it and move on.

[Drich0150]

I could offer others…

you could but they would conflict scripturally.
The definitions I offered do not conflict anywhere in scripture and there fore give you the simpliest and cleanest definition possible.

Sin is the failure to obey a bemused human religious leader’s commands.

Not every sin is a broken command. For example Christ said if you have hate in your heart is is the same as breaking the command that says you shall not murder.

Hate is a sin, akin to murder yet we do not have a command that says thou shalt not hate, better yet hating someone you are guilty or breaking a sin as bad as murder, yet to simply hate does not mean you have to hurt or even lay a finger on anyone.

That is why I Identified sin being anything not in the expressed will or Law of God. The law covers everything you mentioned, the expressed will means unless God said it is ok then it is not. That would make everyone a sinner all the time even the saved.

Evil is sinning (see above)

Here
s the thing though... All evil is sin, but not all sin is evil. Which is why I gave my defnation evil is a desire or actions that to sin or remain in sin.

For example to steal to eat is a sin as stealing no matter what is breaking the law of God. However to steal the eat is not an evil act.

Free will is the actions of individuals with brains (not everyone, apparently, has one).

again free will is an ancient greek philosophy and has nothing to do with scripture.

The Bible was written by people who lived long after the events they wrote about and without evidence of any sort.

Actually you can say that about certain parts of the bible not as a whole. We have a better understanding of the bible than any other document of the first century.

I will even add that much of the bible is taken from the myths of older cultures, sometimes hilariously badly.

then please provide a valid example.

God is the conception of superstitious and easily frightened nomadic peoples .

which God?

The prehistoric peoples had gods in every tree river and field, the ancient villagers had fewer with some duties, the more modern peoples have few or one.  Next step is none.  One fewer each time.

thanks for sharing.

Physics does well enough for the creation of our current universe. 

really?? then why doesn't it jive both on a macro and micro scale? why don't the same laws apply on subatomic particles as they would on a galactic planetary scale?

If “God” is a title, should that be “Mr God”, “Ms God” or “It”?  And BTW, you can refer to me as “Supreme Commander”.  SC for short; I don’t mind…

...bother...
Do you say "Mr." Doctor? or Ms. Doctor??? how about Mr. Judge or Mrs. Justice? Mr astronaut? did quite think things through huh?

Where is “God The Daughter”? 

the bible does not say there is one.

Ah the Trinity.  The Tripartite Committee of the paranoid’s fears.

Truth IS the state of being true.  As Short IS the state of being short.  Be still, my beating heart!

As a simpleton's question I can only give a simple answer. Again my efforts here are about being accurate. I can't dress up an answer just because it may seem overtly simple to you.

[Drich0150]

I already went to bat for you, Dirch. Try to make me proud.

FYI here is the rule you are at risk of running afoul of.

Assertions that you understand the Bible and we don't doesn't meet our intelligent discourse standard without an explanation of why you understand it better than we do. You know you're right doesn't really cut it either. Continuing to assert the same thing over and over is spam. I'd like to see you stick around because I think we could use a few more dissenting opinions, but you need to pay heed to rule number 3. If you think you are going to have a problem with that I suggest you avoid the subject and contribute to the community in other ways.

No I get it, but here's the thing. If the community asks a question the ends at the bible then I must end at the bible. if they want to know why or go deeper they must follow up with another question. Otherwise I'm the one being baited to provide answers to questions they know will get me in trouble. If I provide anything else without follow up questions then I will be guilty of abandoning my beliefs.

I'll may an effort to expand the discussion which will take us past the bible answers..

But in sort I hope these mods can see when you asked a bible based question then the end is a bible based answer that is not prostoltizing.

That would be no different than having a star trek discussion and referencing a book or a different movie or series to answer the star trek based question. as it is remaining faithful to star trek cannon. So if a person asks a cannon based question what else am I supposed to do?

[Blackleaf]

No I get it, but here's the thing. If the community asks a question the ends at the bible then I must end at the bible. if they want to know why or go deeper they must follow up with another question. Otherwise I'm the one being baited to provide answers to questions they know will get me in trouble. If I provide anything else without follow up questions then I will be guilty of abandoning my beliefs.

I'll may an effort to expand the discussion which will take us past the bible answers..

But in sort I hope these mods can see when you asked a bible based question then the end is a bible based answer that is not prostoltizing.

That would be no different than having a star trek discussion and referencing a book or a different movie or series to answer the star trek based question. as it is remaining faithful to star trek cannon. So if a person asks a cannon based question what else am I supposed to do?

There's a difference between talking with someone and talking at someone. For many who come here, having a conversation is not an interest to them. They just want to tell us what to think, without really engaging. As long as you engage in back and forth discussion, you should be safe from being banned. Answering questions is not against the rules.

[Drich0150]

Euthyphro Dilemma: Is what is moral commanded by God because is it moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God? In other words, are good and evil objective standards that God happens aligns himself with, or are good and evil defined by God alone?

If morality was a standard that determined or would superceed God's authority then "morality" would be more powerful than God.

Rather I say the oppsite Morality is the oppsite of an absolute or righteous standard. It is a standard that allows for the sins we have accepted as a society.

Where God says it is always wrong to steal 'morality' says it is ok to steal to feed you starving children.

God's standard has nothing to do with 'morality.' God lives by and expects perfect righteousness./adhearance to His law.

Which he knows is impossible and in the end does not judge us by morality or righteousness. Meaning after Christ morality is not a scale God uses to judge the righteous and neither is His law. In the end we are free from the law of God Free from the judgement of all 'morality.' The only question in the end was Jesus 'moral' was Jesus righteous, as we are not judged by our deeds but his.

[Drich0150]

There's a difference between talking with someone and talking at someone.

which is why I go line by line and answer each indivisual question or point.

For many who come here, having a conversation is not an interest to them.

but you can't argue the flip side either. while they may enjoy the convo they may hate any resistance or opposition, and move to strike rather than allow the disruption.. I'm sure many of you have felt this sting in a Christian site. for SOME atheist sites opposition is also strictly censored.

They just want to tell us what to think, without really engaging.

here's the thing with me, ask pops.. I will engage as deep as you want to go. we have doctors lawyers and all sorts armature/professional philosophers on that other site and I always meet everyone on their own level of engagement. if they want to use bad language and name call I can to some extent do that. if you want to quote and load up on reference material all you need to is ask or do the same and I will literally read and go line by line that way if you wist (I don't do youtube videos or info dumps like skeptics' annodated bible for example, out side of pointing you to the SAB answered.) However I am willing to match work and effort for work and effort and have done for the past 5 or 6 years at the other site. To the point where I shut down the religious sections.

NONE of it due to proselytizing. I simply have always put the work in. and what I say makes sense (over time.) I am the real deal no BS Real world Real life Christian. one who has found God and can tap a wealth of information and resources because of it. I TRUTH don't care to convert anyone. not my thing. My thing is truth and the need to share it no matter how crazy it may sound.

As long as you engage in back and forth discussion, you should be safe from being banned. Answering questions is not against the rules.
[/quote]

[Blackleaf]

If morality was a standard that determined or would superceed God's authority then "morality" would be more powerful than God.

Rather I say the oppsite Morality is the oppsite of an absolute or righteous standard. It is a standard that allows for the sins we have accepted as a society.

Where God says it is always wrong to steal 'morality' says it is ok to steal to feed you starving children.

God's standard has nothing to do with 'morality.' God lives by and expects perfect righteousness./adhearance to His law.

Which he knows is impossible and in the end does not judge us by morality or righteousness. Meaning after Christ morality is not a scale God uses to judge the righteous and neither is His law. In the end we are free from the law of God Free from the judgement of all 'morality.' The only question in the end was Jesus 'moral' was Jesus righteous, as we are not judged by our deeds but his.

So you're saying that good and evil are defined by God, because nothing can have authority over God. But here's the problem with that. If "good" and "evil" are whatever God defines them as, then those words are meaningless. Christians like to say that "God is good." But what does that mean? That God fits his own definition of goodness? Why should that be impressive? Also, if good and evil are defined by God, then God can tell you to do anything and it will automatically be good. He can tell you to rape and kill and innocent woman, and because God commanded it, it would become good.

Right now, you may be thinking the same thing many respond with, "But God is good, so he would never ask me to do something that is evil." And if so, you'd be proving my point. If God would never command you to murder because murder is evil, then morality transcends God. It is not something that he can arbitrarily define. He must adhere to morality himself if he is to be good and just. If God can make something good just by saying it's good, then when you say that God is "good," all you're really saying is that he's consistent with himself.

And if you read the Bible, you will find that God does frequently change his definitions of right and wrong. At one point, he'll declare that working on the Sabbath Day is evil, and that those who do so should be stoned to death. Then later, God says that it is fine to work on the Sabbath Day when it is done out of necessity. So even to say that God is consistent is giving him too much credit.

I find it it funny how Christians often claim that morality cannot exist without God. They'll say that without God, atheists cannot say murder is evil, because atheists do not believe in objective morality. Yet the Bible is full of examples of God ordering people to do things that modern society sees as evil, including the murder of innocent men, women, and children, making lifetime slaves out of their "enemies" without provocation, and more.

Morality should not be based on some "moral absolutes." Each situation should be assessed individually. Even Jesus said this, as pointed out earlier:

"There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the LORD." (Leviticus 23:3; also included in the Ten Commandments)

This is a moral absolute. One which Jesus said may be broken, when the circumstances provided a need:

"He said to them, 'If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?'" (Matthew 12:11)

So even according to the Bible, the idea of moral absolutes, as defined by God, is stupid.

[Baruch]

G-d's judgement (Biblical) is a pretty simply mechanism.  You can't change the past, it is eternal (unchanging).  Once something has happened, it slips into the past.  This gives G-d a carte blanche ... if it happened (say WW II) then G-d must have at least allowed it, if not encouraged it.  And if G-d allows it, then it must be OK, even if less than ideal.  G-d certainly at least allows the less than idea ... aka free will.  This is why you can't confess and repent, after you are dead.  But I find this notion of G-d in history ... completely unacceptable.  Understandable yes, acceptable no way.

[Cavebear]

So even according to the Bible, the idea of moral absolutes, as defined by God, is stupid.

But that is the problem.  If a deity says something is good and right; it IS.  You can't argue with a deity.  So when a deity says that person is a witch and must be tortured to death, you do it.  If the deity says it wants a sacrificial child, you do it.  Its the deity!

I'm being sarcastic of course, but that is how true theists think.  You do what the acknowledged representatives of the deity TELL you to do.  There isn't an option unless you want to be tortured in Hell forever.  They really think that.

I read something interesting in Scientific American (May 2017). 

The Duke of Brunswick in Germany invited two Jesuit scholars to oversee the Inquisition's use of torture  to extract information from accused witches.  "The Inquisitors are doing their duty.  They are arresting only people who have been implicated by the confession of other witches", the Jesuits reported.

The Duke was skeptical.  Suspecting that people will say anything to stop the pain, he invited the Jesuits to join him  at the local dungeon to witness a woman being stretched on the rack. 

I'll shorten the story...  The duke told the woman the 2 people with him were warlocks and demanded the rack be tightened.  She immediately accused the two Jesuits of heinous acts.  They were thus "implicated by the confession of a witch".

The Duke then turned to the two Jesuits and said "Shall I put you to the torture until you confess"? 

One of the Jesuits wrote a book which helped end the witch hunts.  But it was the skeptical Duke who forced the issue.

The Jesuits were just fine committing torture as long as it didn't involve them.  They suddenly doubted the decrees of their deity when reality intruded.

All theists are like that.  They will commit untold horror on others until it applies to them and then reality comes to their minds.  There is nothing they will not to to others in the name of their particular deity until it applies to them. 

And I state firmly that such a view applies to all theisms.

[Baruch]

Today we mostly apply this to civic religion (patriotism).  People go down based on extracted or imagined confessions, or fake evidence, from Commies.  We must burn the Commies.  Of course the Commies did the same thing to Capitalists ... spawn of Satan that they are.

[Unbeliever]

If morality was a standard that determined or would superceed God's authority then "morality" would be more powerful than God.

Rather I say the oppsite Morality is the oppsite of an absolute or righteous standard. It is a standard that allows for the sins we have accepted as a society.

Where God says it is always wrong to steal 'morality' says it is ok to steal to feed you starving children.

God's standard has nothing to do with 'morality.' God lives by and expects perfect righteousness./adhearance to His law.

Which he knows is impossible and in the end does not judge us by morality or righteousness. Meaning after Christ morality is not a scale God uses to judge the righteous and neither is His law. In the end we are free from the law of God Free from the judgement of all 'morality.' The only question in the end was Jesus 'moral' was Jesus righteous, as we are not judged by our deeds but his.

Well, Jesus wasn't as nice as he's hyped up to be:

15 Things Christ said that weren't Nice

[Baruch]

Jeebus ain't a blond blue-eyed gentile Baptist from Little Rock, now aren't he?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You may have, or clear up any misconceptions you may have concerning the God of the bible!

The best and brightest responses in 3.. 2.. 1....

Ps. can someone help me put my sunflower avatar up

ONLY prayer can put up a sunflower avatar. It's completely beyond the power of mere mortal human beings.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Well, Jesus wasn't as nice as he's hyped up to be:

15 Things Christ said that weren't Nice

Yeah, but even if Christ really was a rotten bastard, all you gotta do to go to heaven is say the magic words. So sure! You're a mass murderer, a thief, a rapist ,an adulterer or any other type of horrific criminal.. Just mutter those few magic words and *DING!* you're saved and on your way to everlasting life and salvation to kiss the feet of the big spooky forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever  ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and.......It's almost as good as a never ending bowl of Lucky Charms..magically delicious 😋 but not quite.

Sorry, I forgot my magic words so I messed up the 'and evers'.
Surely I'm doomed.

[Unbeliever]

DOOMED, I say!