Re: You know you're a Christina when .. (was: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent de

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:12:47 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
 
>
>A proof must be logically consistent and complete to be correct,
>which mine is.

Unless I'm reading the wrong "proof", this is what you said:
>
>Postulate: God exists, has a moral standard and will judge and punish
>all created beings who do not follow it.
>
>Conclusion: Any moral standard not based on God's law will be punished
>by God Who, being omnipotent, overrules all human authority.
>
>Morality based on authority can *only* be invalid in three situations:
>    1. If there is no God.
>    2. If God sets no absolute moral standard
>    3. The specified moral standard is not God's

A specified moral standard can be God's - such as "thou shalt not
kill", but created by someone who doesn't have God's interest.

With your postulate, it is possible that God doesn't mind some other
moral standards as long as they don't conflict with His greater
authority.

And there are lots of Christians who accept God's authority but who do
not accept your postulate.

Even with this postulate, all you can reasonably infer is that there
are some invalid moral authorities - not that there are valid moral
authorities.    Who do *you* accept as a moral authority with the
ability to override what you have determined to be God's will
according to the scriptures as you read them?

>Causing people to believe it is a different matter,
>because people believe what they choose to believe, evidence,
>even logical proof, to the contrary. :-)

Agreed.