whether a person is righteous or the act they have performed is righteous is just a matter of opinion .. only God can be deemed by the believer as being absolute righteous because to them God can do no wrong ..

Well - you are wrong. Read the Psalms and you'll know exactly how David viewed himself in God's eyes. Else stop guessing.

Well no, you would be wrong. David clearly states that he is a righteous man in god's eyes. The passage from Isaiah is clearly stating that no man is righteous. Thus the contradiction. You cant have it both ways.

Is the absolute rightiousness of God deemed so by the subjectiveness of man? For the sake of the discussion - Rightiousness is an absolute, and man's opinion in this matter is irrelivant. Man is not omniscient so is always short of enough information to even be allowed an opinion. He may have one - but it doesn't mean it is supported by relevant information - or that it is in fact even close to being correct. Every now and then he may get it right. Even a busted clock is right twice a day.

I concur.

If you say so rabbi Krimsa. But you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with you - having read the text and determining otherwise. But lets not muck this thread up with facts.

No one need be a Rabbi. These are clearly contradictions. Its probably because a bunch of illiterates drunks were writing this stuff.

nope..."Eljay" I said only the believers of God deem that God is righteous others may say that God was Satan



now "Eljay" it is you that is playing God by stating an absolute that is not an absolute ...what may be righteousness to you may be evil to another



what if the busted clock has no hands ..also couldn't the same be said about a God that destroys his own creations ..this may seem righteous to the God but those on the receiving end may not see it that way

righteousness is like compassionate ..if someone deem themselves either is narcissitic ...only others can deem whether someone hold those traits and it would still be only an opinion

That is still the subjectiveness of man.



Doesn't change a thing. It matters not what anyone's opinion is in terms of an absolute. There is an absolute to rightiousness that comes by it's very definition, and whether or not one is in agreement with that definition does not change it. Perhaps you are refering to what one might site as an example of rightiousness - which would not alter the definition of it. Only one's belief or perception of it - which may or may not be correct. However - that would not change the absoluteness of it.




A clock with no hands is not a clock.

Rightiousness is not analogous with Compassion. But the same criteria would hold true for compassion as well. There is an absolute to compassion based on it's definition. Again - opinion only enters into the equasion as it relates to an example of compassion - it does not alter the meaning of it. By allowing opinion to influence the argument - you are shifting the middle, and your conclusion is not supporting the premise.

"Eljay"...if rightousness or compassion was absolute it couldn't be disputed by neither of us, the fact that it is being disputed proves it's not an absolute ...so let me give you an example of an absolute

your existence to yourself is an absolute ..you can't deny to yourself that you don't exist and it's impossible to doubt that you do exist, no one can tell you to your face that you don't exist or that they doubt that you do exist because they would mean that they are delusional...

the same doesn't apply to rightousness or compassionate because if you tell yourself that you are one or both doesn't mean you are either and will only prove that you are a narcissist

someone can say you are rightous ...but hey ...they might be delusional

"Eljay" ...er.. what if the busted clock is a digital clock ...it once gave the time and yet never had hands

see what happens when you try to make something absolute or truth ...it can always be disputed in someway and proved how it's not absolute and not truth

What you are doing Funches is siting examples of each. If someone says "You are rightious" - they are siting that one as an example of rightiousness, not the definition of it. Their opinion is a subjective one. The definition of rightiousness would not change whether their perseption of someone as an example of it is correct or not - nor whether anyone else agree's with them or not. They may both be incorrect. It does not change the absoluteness of the definition of rightiousness.

A broken digital clock is still right twice a day.
Unless it has no power - in which case it is just a box - it's no longer a clock.

And you're still citing an "example" of something that gives time - not a representative of time itself.

"Eljay" everyone before the bible in the bible and since the bible including God have either killed or feed off of something that was once alive which is why there is no such thing as absolute rightousness or an absolute rightous act because there is always an alternative motive.. ..

if you believe that an absolute rightous person exist that cannot be disputed that they are in fact absolutely rightous ...then name them

text never ever declare GOD to NOT be wrong, as text is not even written from such sperspective at all, but rather as ever learning?

right + wrong= more learning, new knowing, new awareness, new data, new wisdom?

god only said to be inner truth, completing an equasion of "what two things combined make"?

the same as to say, winter and summer make?

SUSTAIN LIFE?

seems why it always include this in text, saying things such as god seen it was not most good, NOT WRONG, which is learning?

if humans are made in the image of god, each one male and female, then likewise, GOD is made in the same image of each male and female?

so if man was said to be purposed to learn more, then so be god, which if holding to text as all true, without accessing all things singular, or as being "and end", then the ONLY PERFECT THAT would be IN THE SAME CONTEXT OF TEXT, would be learning?

learning is the only perfect?

how can learning be the perfect, IF WHAT IS NEEDED TO LEARN, IS CURSED BY THE MIND, AS WRONG?

seems this be what text most try to parlay as a WHOLE LOGIC, instead of a "half logic", that see all things as either "right or wrong"?

such things aere totally agsint the natural inclination of the conscious mind, which always make it into a "battle" of good or evil, right and wrong?

if there be any greater intelligence, how can it be what does NOT see right and wrong as BOTH blessed, and indeed, if ANY human habit has come to "despise" wrong, defining all things thru this notion, then at first, to correct such strong habitual reasoning, wrong will at first, have to be worshipped as the MOST BLESSED THING ANY HUMAN HAVE?

within self, within all things looked at, as certainly it is not misssed, the human brain is a self correcting type writer of sorts, writing it's own story out in real life, and no better of anything, ever come less one worship their OWN MISTAKES, as the HOLY GRAIL of learning?

what state of any being, will stay the same, if self love to see where it is wrong, as this make self soon love to learn, and no major disators will ever NEED to come, as self has learned the essence of WHAT make be the only thing that can increase perfection, or just getting more smart, more wise, more knowing, OF HOW TO CREATE GOOD?

what self only need to then admit it's own faults to itself, as POSITIVE?

knowing truly THEY ARE THE ONLY POSITIVE?

for some reason, this notion reside that this makes not one "sorry" for any past action that did not most suite self or another, but if true reality of "learning principle" are held to, this actually make anything, wish to undo, not say sorry, as GUILT reside with the "sorry", as what be more sorry, than telling another how what was done, IS SEEN BY SELF TO HAVE MADE THEM FEEL?

then, this other KNOWS in reality, ONE HAS LEARNED BETTER?

what need does "sorry" even have to be said, as sorry is a word of "guilt", and seem most why it is not a word in text?

text only say "repent", which only be to change one's mind?

how can one change it's mind, about what is good, and what is better, if others are craming "wrong" down their throat?

it will create the OPPOSITE of what is most good for BOTH PARTIES?

WHAT IS UP, IS DOWN, AND WHAT IS DOWN, IS UP?

one way, make life as miserble, a depressing struggle and misery, of failing self good, which in reality, when ANYTHING IS BORN, IS WHAT IT SEEK?

good not just for self, but good for all things around self, all sharing in good and joy together, but opposite lgic of what create good, pumped in continually by all environemt, is what cause the subversion of natural good and love and caring and kindness within the pure self of all human beings?

the same as to say, you CAN'T HAVE ANY PUDDING, LESS YOU EAT YOUR MEAT?

resistence is naturally created this way?

the other way being, SURE you CAN have pudding, JUST AFTER finishing your meat?

this provides self the seeing IT IS IN CONTROL OF OUTCOME MOST, teaching SELF LEARNING?

which provide a SELF CONFIDENCE, independence, courage, valor, and common knowing OTHERS ARE JUST AS GOOD, AND LEARING AND DOING AND EXPERIENCING THE SAME LEARNING TOGETHER?

no then of DIVIDE, which always turn it into right and wrong?

whose fault could any such thing be, as anything that woudl do such things, surely can be seen to only have come from pre-existing data input into while here, so who is to blame?

blame has no place in any learning, and truly only the telling of WHAT things create be what give more useful data, that will make better good?

certainly seems why text used the exact words used, to try to paint a larger logic or picture of things?

just one cent of why god is not "right and wrong" in the way described?

would not this be the same reason, text say "satan", only called "innocence" or ignorance, was "sent" to man?

just ideas......

if the clock is busted it could skip back and forwards or blink out and could never get the time right ...again disproving absolution



"Eljay" a digital clock without a battery or power is still a digital clock without a battery or power ..unless you believe that all someone has to do is place a battery in any type of box and it magically turn into a digital clock...

"DavidBen" ..according to the bible God made "Man" in his own image not humans which signify both Man and Women ..women came as an after thought and after Adam

funches....

i agree with you, it can appear as such, but you yourself said it look like GOD MADE ADAM TWICE?

the EIGHT DAY?

the end of a seventh day, WHEN ADAM IS COMPLETE?

text say what will be, THEN ALL THAT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN, TO MAKE IT SO, OR CREATE IT?

we are in the creating of it?

each decide for itself, when WOMEN WAS MADE, BUT ADAM "AWOKE" AND THERE WAS EVE?

awoke from what?

the eating of the tree of knowledge of seeing all thru "good and evil"?

i understand, how things look man, BUT LOOK AGAIN, as HOW CAN WE, IF WE HAVE TRUE WISE SIGHT, just believe our singular idea, tell the tail?

no beginning or no ending, said to be needed to be applied to the MEAING OF ALL WORDS?

just ideas man......

"DavidBen" ...believers will be quick to tell you that God made Adam and Eve ...not Adam and Steve

you are trying to sugarcoat what's in the bible by trying to rewrite it to an even stranger interpetation ..you are practically saying that Eve was transgender

remember God supposely formed Eve from one of Adam's rib not from Adam's tallywacker