@kands00: "I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question.  So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com"
    @jkraus_1999: "<quote>
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man.  No, there's no psychological
obstacle.  There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else.  Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God.  If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature  something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity  then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
The objection of non-Christians to Christianity is simply that God is
NOT the same as a man.  They are irreconcileable entities, that cannot
exist as one.  Logically and metaphysically."
    @americacaptain: "<quote>
Same question from the Muslim point of view:
How is it that Christians expect that God Himself had to sacrifice for 
man, while not self-sacrificing themselves for God?
Captain America
Agnostic Asshole who disrupts the status quo .com"
    @kands00: "<quote>
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true.  Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
How is it that you continually post strawmen?
Muslims don't necessarily deny that God *could* do such a thing; it
isn't even an issue for them.  They deny that He DID do such a thing.
They deny that Jesus of Nazareth could possibly be the same being as
God, because the polytheistic concept of the Trinity contradicts what
their scriptures say about God (which among other things includes His
being inherently singular).
If you want to know more than that, I suggest that you visit a
Moslem-related newsgroup or website and ask someone who actually
follows the religion, rather than expecting others to argue the
theology of a religion that they don't accept any more than they
accept your peculiar theology.
lojbab"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
False.  
There are numerous other alternatives, including the one already
mentioned which is "the concept of God is completely incompatible with
self-sacrifice".
But of course, it is also possible that Moslems don't think that the
concept "God is the sum of all good" is meaningful either.  Allah is
Great, and Allah is All-Powerful.  Allah's laws are good.  But you
need to actually check was a Moslem scholar to know their reaction to
your silly argument.
<url>
<A hadith in Sahih Muslim tells us that Muhammad had confirmed Jesus
< Christ was born through the spirit of Allah�(Sahih Muslim 1.43).
<
<Book 001, Number 0043: 
<It is narrated on the authority of Ubadah b. Samit that the messenger
< of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: He who said: "There is no
< god but Allah, He is One and there is no associate with Him, that
< Muhammad is his servant and His messenger, that Christ is servant and
< the son of His slave-girl and he (Christ) His word which He
< communicated to Mary and is His Spirit, that Paradise is a fact and
< Hell is a fact," Allah would make him (he who affirms these truths
< enter Paradise through any one of its eight doors which he would like.
lojbab"
    @Crazy_Bastard: ""Wide Eyed in Wonder" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Because Muslims worship Satan..."
    @mars1933: ""One of the most astounding instances of Jewish hypocrisy was uttered
by a Jew named Isi Leibler, who is no less than the chairman of the
governing board of the World Jewish Congress. Now Isi Leibler is
well-known as a powerful Jew in Australia, where he was for years the
official head of the Jewish community there. He now lives in Israel.
In an interview with a Jerusalem newspaper, he stated about Israel
"This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country
for the Jews." In an essay he wrote for the World Jewish Congress, he
decried intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews as a kind of racial
suicide, and likened assimilation with non-Jews as a slow bleeding to
death of the Jewish people. He emphasized that focus of Israeli policy
should be to sharpen and intensify Jewish identity and that even
giving up territory was acceptable if it meant getting rid of non-Jews
and making Israel a more nearly all-Jewish state. Leibler argues that
post-Zionists threaten Israel when they publish textbooks that
de-emphasize Jewish racial
interests and replace them with "universalist" history. In the
interview mentioned, Leibler went so far as to say: "Multiculturalism
has no place in Israel. Israel was created as a Jewish state for the
Jews." That's the Jew Isi Leibler talking about his own people's
country, talking about Israel. [Leibler, Isi: Is the Dream Ending?
Post-Zionism and its
Discontents - A Threat to the Jewish Future, Institute of the World
Jewish Congress, Israel]
But what was Isi Leibler saying when he lived in Australia, a White
country, a non-Jewish country? What was Isi Leibler saying when he was
the head of Australia's powerful Jewish minority? Isi Leibler's advice
to Israel is to protect its racial and cultural heritage. Isi
Leibler's advice to Jews is to avoid intermarriage. Isi Leibler thinks
it's just
fine  even necessary  to separate non-Jews from Jews in Israel, to
get non-Jews on the other side of a well-defended border, to throw
them out of Israel. But to Australians Isi Leibler played quite a
different tune. When Australian politician Pauline Hanson was
galvanizing White Australians in 1993 with her questioning of the
wisdom of non-White
immigration to that country, Leibler warned that "extremists" were
threatening precious multiculturalism. He said: "There is a need to
sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture
that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being
part and parcel of, and which is really under threat?" [Australian
Herald-Sun,
September 27, 2000] 
How much clearer does it have to be before you see it? Leibler and his
fellow powerful Jews want racial nationalism for their own people,
because racial nationalism makes them strong and ensures their
survival. They want racial nationalism because they want their kind to
survive and racial nationalism is the key to survival. They're not
stupid. They want what is best for Jews.
But Leibler and his fellow powerful Jews don't want racial nationalism
for White people. In Australia and Europe and South Africa and the
United States - wherever White people live  Leibler and his kind in
Jewish organizations and in the Jewish-controlled media do everything
in their power to destroy racial nationalism for White people,
everything
in their power to keep us from having it, everything in their power to
make it disreputable and impossible and illegal. Just the other day,
Leibler said that one of the most important things in the world to him
was Israel's "right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state." [Israel
Insider, November 24, 2002] But Leibler and his co-racialists in the
Jewish ADL and other groups devote their lives and their billions to
preventing White people from claiming their right to sovereign White
states. Keeping Britain British, or keeping America American, or
keeping France French, is anathema to them, it is the ultimate in evil
and they never let us forget that."
<url>      <url>
<url>     <url>
<url>     "
    @writingken: "<quote>
If self-sacrifice is good, God would have that quality.  If God
contains all good qualities and doesn't have self-sacrifice, it isn't
a good quality.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com"
    @rogerfx: "When encountering a pile of dog shit, most do not add a pile of their own.
They crack a joke and try not to inhale.
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>"
    @jewdemon: "<quote>
Because muzzies are all lying pigs. They worship allah the moon
goddess and her butt buddy mad mo."
    @jkraus_1999: "<quote>
Correct.  Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good.  They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil.  He/It is not evaluated morally.  He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply."
    @writingken: "<quote>
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial.  Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil.  However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted.  Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good.  So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
In OUR society, "we the people" decide the standard.  The judge merely
applies OUR standard to the case.
It isn't necessarily true about other societies either.
That does not follow.  Judges do not define "good and evil".  They
interpret "legal" and "illegal", and may strive for "justice".
Since when?
If there is no appeal, then the judgment stands.  The concept of
"tainted" simply does not apply.
That does not follow even from all the rest.  A judge who is not evil
does not have to be the sum of all good.
That does not follow, because you are playing games with the English
language.  Good is not a summable quality (or quantity).  "sum of all
good" is just a figure of speech".
Evil people can possess a lot of goods and still be quite evil.  Good
people may possess no goods and still be good.
lojbab"
    @writingken: "<quote>
In this society and ALL societies, the judge uses the law that gave
Him the position.  And, in NO society, does the judge use the law
(conscience or justification) of the one on trial.
Actually, that is false.  Judges decide GOOD things for people to do
for public service every day, and they decide which crimes are worse
than others and are worthy greater sentences.  Are you even trying
here?
Now I think you are just brainlessly typing.  We don't allow felons to
be judges.
"good" people cannot.  People with "good" qualities can.  If you call
someone "good" you are declaring them entirely good.  If God is
"good," He is, as I said, entirely good.
Ken Clifton"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
Which are OUR laws, not his.
And if he doesn't use OUR laws as his standard, but something else,
he'll be overturned on appeal, and if really egregious, he'll be
impeached and removed from office.
You seem to be trying to redefine the word "law".  Neither
"conscience" or "justification" is "law".
But in point of fact, for several crimes and punishments in our
society, evidence of conscience (the word used is "remorse") or
however the person justifies his actions can affect whether the person
is convicted ("self-defense" and "insanity" defenses apply here), and
what the sentence will be.
No.  If they assign public service, the key word is "service", not
"good".  Often times the judge doesn't even decide what the community
service will be, but leaves it to some appropriate government
department.
The law determines that, not the judge.  And the standard is not
"good" and "evil", but "lawful" and "unlawful" with a scale of
"seriousness" which may or may not have anything to do with "good and
evil".
"Worse", BTW is a term on the scale of "good and bad", not on the
scale of "good and evil".  You are succumbing to the temptation to
think that idiosyncrasies of the English language reflect reality.  
Trying what?  I don't need to try, in order for you to look like an
idiot.  You do that by yourself.  I merely am the one that articulates
the sort of thing that others merely think about, and then click the
"next" button.
"Felons" are merely people who broke the law.  They did something
illegal, not necessarily something evil.  The law is not inherently
good, and crime is not necessarily evil.
And there is nothing in particular that stops a convicted felon from
becoming a judge, provided that he can get nominated and confirmed.
Nor, necessarily, does a judge who is convicted of a felony have to
step down from office.  That takes a separate impeachment trial.
Until convicted by an impeachment trail, a judge can be a felon and
still remain a judge (in point of fact, the few such federal judges
who have been convicted have in fact been impeached and removed, but
that is a decision of Congress and not an absolute requirement).
Cannot what?
And who is a "good" person, under the doctrine of original sin?
People with "good" qualities can.
Can what?  
Bullshit.  
I know lots of people that I call "good".  I still know that every one
of them has done many bad things in their lives.
A good movie may still have some flaws.
A good meal may have a high calorie count.
The English language does not abide by your black/white distinctions.
That is only your own worthless opinion.  It is not inherent to the
English language word "good".
Indeed language seldom uses words as absolutes.
lojbab"
    @jkraus_1999: "<quote>
I'm afraid your post does not have much logical coherence.  God as
"judge" is a possible interpretation of divinity, but not a
particularly common one.  I'm not sure where you got the idea that
judges aren't allowed to have any evil in them.  They're just human,
like everyone else.  They're not the sum of all good, obviously!
They're also not particularly self-sacrificing!"
    @grayshockley: "On Jun 7, 2007, Cary Kittrell wrote
<quote>
Not a biggie; Henrieta H God is very laissez-faire about the "whole 
ball of wax".
Her idea of "punishment" is to spend a "little while" (that 
expression makes me nervous) in a MacDonald's. Of course, the "food" 
might be a little bit boring and the "restrooms" rather restricted in 
the areas of sanitation and cleanliness.
Not only a "good quality" but the only way for your "wrong" to be 
forgiven.
No "shortcuts" or "detours".
  ++ gray"
    @jalqadir: "On Jun 5, 9:22 am, A dirty muzzie pig's worst nightmare!
<quote>
Wow! this comment, coming from a Jew, is kind of self defeating. Jews
are know for their treacherous and over-controlling approach on those
who have accepted them in their land. Children of Kain they are, a
curse on this land!"
    @kands00: "<quote>
Sorry, I jumped ahead of you.  Yes, making ammends is a good thing.
No. It cannot pay for the wrong.  God cannot be bribed.
Ken Clifton"
    @kands00: "<quote>
BINGO.  I hope you are reading your own words.  If God doesn't use the
standard that makes Him a judge (His own), his decisions are
invalid.
Just above you admitted that the judge cannot use another standard but
the laws under which he lives.  Now, you say he can use the standard
of the accused.  Make up your mind.  So, I respond with your own
words...
"And if he doesn't use [the laws under which he is a judge] as his
standard, but something else, he'll be overturned on appeal, and if
really egregious, he'll be impeached and removed from office."
And....the judge would decide that good enough to qualify.
Now you are just fictionalizing stuff again.  The judge DOES decide
the penalty based upon how bad he thinks the crime to be.  Do you even
live in this country?
WOW.  Not only are you a terrorist supporter, but you have the
mentality of a criminal, as well.  Breaking the law, according to you,
is not evil?
Fictionalizing, again.  I just remembered why I stopped debating with
you, last time.  When you are losing a debate, you just start making
stuff up.  If you are going to live in your fantasy land and ignore
reality, what point is there to debate you?  Enough said....
K.C."
    @kands00: "<quote>
I already answered this.  See above.
Getting back to the point.
I find it a hypocrisy for Islam to say that self-sacrifice is a
virtue, while saying that God (as sum of all good) is unable to
sacrifice Himself.  Either God CAN sacrifice Himself for man, or self-
sacrifice isn't good.
K.C."
    @jkraus_1999: "<quote>
I think one can argue, that for GOD, self-sacrifice is NOT good!  That
the very concept of self-sacrifice is inconsistent with being all-
powerful and and all-knowing.   Why should God need to engage in self-
sacrifice?  Why not simply use that infinite power to rectify all
problems?  Isn't self-sacrifice, for an all-powerful God, a
distraction and an irrelevancy?"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
We can change our laws.  Do you refuse to grant God the power to
change His?  
No. I specifically denied that.  The judge USES one standard for what
is the *law*.  He also DOES take into account circumstances (which are
not standards) such as remorse and justification; he doesn't use them
as alternate standards.  The recognition of circumstances and
conditions is the difference between "the law", and "justice".
Juries of course are free to actually "nullify a law", ignoring it in
a specific case, if they think that applying it will give an unjust
result.  A jury that does that cannot be appealed.  A judge that does
it, can.
Nope.  It may or may not be up to the judge.  Indeed, if the judge has
discretion, then that means that it is an area where there is no
specified law.
At the federal level, the judge decides the penalty based on legal
sentencing standards.  He decides what standards apply, based on the
legal definitions, but he does not make up the standards, and "how bad
he thinks the crime to be" is not one of those standards.
Nope.  Sometimes it is indeed "good".  I refer you to Mahatma Gandhi,
and the concept of civil disobedience against a bad law.  Or closer to
home, the Underground Railroad prior to the Civil War.  Surely you
don't think that the slave codes were "good" merely because they were
"the law".
Many laws of the Nazis were in fact evil.  They were still the law,
and the German judges had to follow that law, or be subject to
penalties of the law themselves.
Nope.  I actually checked that one to be sure.  Not many Federal
judges have been convicted, but those who were either had to
specifically resign or be impeached and removed in order to stop being
a judge.
<url>
discusses one judge who was convicted of a crime in October 1984.  We
was sentenced to prison and started his sentence in May 1986.  He was
still a judge though, and continued to be one until impeached by the
House and removed from office by the Senate in October 1986.  So he
remained a judge for 2 full years after being convicted.
<url>
discusses another such judge who was impeached and removed from
office, in that case after being acquitted by a jury even though he
was apparently guilty, because someone refused to testify.  He was
then elected as a Congressman and is still serving.
At state and local levels I am pretty sure that there are cases where
a judge who has been convicted of a crime can and has remained in
office.  I am even more sure that there are cases where someone who
was convicted of a crime earlier in life was many years later
appointed a judge, having "paid their debt to society".
I don't debate with you.  I may lecture you.  You aren't worthy of
debate.  I've told you this before.
I don't make stuff up.  I don't need to.
You should try saying that to yourself before every time you hit the
"post" button.
lojbab"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
Nobody in Islam gives a damn what you "find".  You don't have a clue
what they believe in the first place.
Do Moslems believe that God is "the sum of all good"?  I don't even
think that Jews believe that.  I'm not even sure that all Christians
believe that, with an obvious reason being that "good" is not
necessarily a "summable" quantity.  
In most religions, the concept of a God sacrificing Himself, means
that the God no longer exists.  If, after sacrificing Himself, God is
unchanged, then there was no real sacrifice.
That does not follow.
You have to ASSume all sorts of things that other people do not
assume.
For one thing, I personally don't think that self-sacrifice is ALWAYS
"good".
lojbab"
    @kands00: "<quote>
Actually, GOD would be refusing that...
"For I am the LORD, I change not" - Mal 3:6
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." - Hebrews
13:8
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." -
Matthew 5:18
So, you are saying he decides if someone is more evil, otherwise the
punishment would be the same everywhere.  You are making my case,
again.
Lying, again.  Judges are sworn to uphold the law, unless it is
unconstitutional.
That isn't what you said above.
Again, that isn't what you said above.  Above, you said that the judge
is allowed to change the law, if he thinks it is unfair.
Upon what standard do you call them EVIL.  You have been telling me
that good and evil are not determined by God's standard.  Now, you are
telling me that human law doesn't determine good and evil.  The only
thing left is for you to tell me that good and evil are up to the
individual.  If that is the case, EVERY SERIAL KILLER and EVERY RAPIST
is good, since they justify themselves.
That's enough for you to answer...
Ken Clifton"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
You have no authority to speak for GOD, and you have no way of knowing
what God would refuse to do.
And yet God has changed His mind (e.g. flood and rainbow).  So you
have taken the words out of context and misunderstood them.
Clearly not.  He was a living human being, and then He was a dead
human being, and then He was a living God and no longer a human being.
Thus the words don't mean what you have taken them out of context to
mean.
Sorry, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law won't change.  It
means that the written law will not change.  But the meaning of the
laws is critical.  What was "cruel and unusual punishment" in 1790 is
not the same as it is today.
YOU and ONLY YOU are injecting the word "evil" in here.  It has
NOTHING to do with the law and what human judges do.
The punishment reflects the values of human beings in our society.  It
has nothing to do with "good" or "evil"
Nope.  I suspect by what you wrote that you failed to understand plain
English yet again.  If I go by what I think you probably meant instead
of the irrelevancy that you actually said in the next sentence, you
agreed with me.
Who cares what they are "sworn" to do?  Most people are interested in
what they actually do.  And they will be appealed, or impeached, or
whatever based on what they actually do.
Determining that "a law" is unconstitutional IS upholding "the law".
You are correct that I didn't say that above.  But I didn't say
anything that contradicted it either.
No, I did not dodo.
Get some reading lessons.  
I said earlier that juries can and do practice "nullification".  I
said that if a judge does not follow the law, that the judge's ruling
can and will be appealed.
On the other hand the USSC can in limited circumstances "change the
law", since that is what their reversing one of their decisions has
the effect of doing.  But that isn't common and it is pretty much
limited to the USSC.
A jury can ignore the law if it thinks it unfair.  A judge who does so
will likely be overturned on appeal, since that constitutes judicial
error.
Mine.  But you are free to consider the Nazis "good" if you wish.
I have?  Where? 
It determines lawful and unlawful.
In one sense it is. In another sense it isn't.
It is certainly possible that a serial killer might consider himself
"good".  That means that to him, he is "good".  To others, he is
"evil". To Gray Shockley, as he has posted several times here, George
W Bush is a serial killer and "evil".  To me, you are a servant of
Satan and "evil".  I am sure that George Bush considers himself to be
"good", and I am sure that you consider yourself to be "good".  
I am sure that most people in the US consider that Saddam Hussein was
evil.  He probably thought that he was "good".  Regardless of whether
he was good or evil, he upheld the laws of Iraq (since he made them
ruling by decree, and granted himself unlimited authority he couldn't
easily break his own laws).
Perhaps there is an absolute standard of good and evil, and perhaps
the being that Christians worship as God defines and reflects that
standard.  That is what I believe.  But of course believers of other
religions believe differently, and none has any greater claim to know
ultimate reality than anyone else.  It is hubris, the sin of pride, to
think that you know God better than others.
And in your case it is ludicrous as well, since you don't know your
ass from a hole in the ground.
lojbab"
    @kands00: "<quote>
I was itching to want to respond to the other stuff, but I need to
focus this response, so I picked this part, since it is soooo good.
We are hitting on the key problem for you, here.  If there is no God-
defined right and wrong, and right and wrong are not defined by the
law but is totally up to the individual, who are you to declare me (or
anyone else for that matter) bad or wrong?
Ken Clifton"
    @writingken: "<quote>
Of course it follows.  If Jesus is right in saying that ONLY God is
good, and God defines Righteousness by Himself, then either self-
sacrifice is good for both man and God or it is not righteous for
either.
Ken Clifton"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
...
Thank you.
kwilcox@example.com.  I have no problems.  It may be a problem for YOU, but why
should I care.
There may be.  But only God is permitted to judge it.  And we aren't
capable of fully understanding God, so we have to muddle along with
our limited human understandings.
Which of course contradict each other, even among those who claim to
base them on the Bible (none of which are relevant to those who don't
accept the Bible as any kind of authority).
"Totally" is your word, not mine.
You are also muddling together "right and wrong", "good and evil", in
addition to your prior muddling of "legal and illegal".  And in the
next sentence you are going to add in "bad and good".
NONE of these pairs are synonymous with the others.  Something can be
legal, and evil, and wrong, and bad.  A law that declares pi=5 and
that the use of any other value would be punishable by death would be
such a law.  Being a law, it is legal (unless ruled unconstitutional);
it is mathematically wrong.  It is evil in that it places insufficient
value on life, and it is bad in that it would lead to a lot of
mathematically and scientifically based parts of our life failing.
The standard of "legal and illegal" is a legal system.
The standard of "good and bad" is individual or group based, depending
on who it helps and harms.
The standard of "right and wrong" is determined by the metaphysical
system in use.  Most people prefer a metaphysical system that
approximates objective reality.  Science is the most successful such
metaphysical system.
The standard of "good and evil" is determined by the moral system in
use.  Until God declares "judgement day", no one's moral system is
privileged, although some moral systems are vested with the powerful
(leading to the saying "might makes right")
All of these are different.  Only the "legal" one CANNOT be
individual.  
I am *I*.  That is all I need to be.
You are "bad" because your irrationality is harmful to an "education"
newsgroup.  I think you are "evil", because you choose to regularly
lie, thereby serving Satan, who I consider to be evil.  You are
"wrong" because you are ignorant and reject the scientific method and
its results, and because you post nonsense.
But you are perfectly legal, in our free society, to keep making an
ass out of yourself, by continuing to post nonsense.  And you are
perfectly legal to believe differently on all of the other three.  But
since I have seen no sign that you've ever convinced anyone of
anything, the only reason I can see for your continuing to post is
that it allows you to continue to play "moneychanger in the temple" by
hawking your religious books on the newsgroups in order to make money.
And that is one thing that we that we can be pretty sure that Jesus
DID consider "evil" and "wrong" and "bad" enough that He didn't bother
waiting until judgement day to punish the transgressors.
But it isn't illegal under our laws, even though it may piss God off
Almightily.  (I've wanted to make that wordplay in a sentence for SO
long; thanks for giving me the topic.)
lojbab"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
Nope.
What Jesus said is utterly irrelevant to any other religion besides
Christianity, thus making your argument utterly irrelevant to
non-believers.
And of course it is contestable that Jesus said anything of the kind.
You may find a verse that you INTERPRET as Jesus saying something to
that effect, but we know that your reading comprehension is zilch.
That's fine, if you are God.
Now you are attempting to conflate "good" and "righteous".  I read a
good book yesterday.  It was not a righteous book.  While
self-sacrifice may in some circumstances be "good", I wouldn't say
that it is *always* "good", and I would never claim that
self-sacrifice is "righteous".  (Some of course say that suicide is
"evil", and it is merely another kind of self-sacrifice.)
In fact, using your assumption that God defines Righteousness, I think
it is blasphemy for any human being to claim that any human act is
"righteous".  Only God can make that judgement, and perhaps only God
can perform a "righteous" act.  Feel free to ask him on judgement day;
I don't much care.
lojbab"
    @kands00: "<quote>
You own hypocrisy is blatent here.  You claim authority to judge me,
while denying anyone else authority to judge anyone.  If the
individual is the judge of good and evil, you can never judge me evil
for anyone other than yourself.
Ken Clifton"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
Get that beam out of your eye, Mr Self-Righteous.
No.  I have no authority to judge you.  And I don't judge you.
There is no legal system under which I have any more authority than to
vote.  I cannot punish you or otherwise sanction you beyond certain
limited actions such as stating my opinion, insulting you at every
opportunity (turkey), and should we ever meet in real life, to turn up
my nose in your face and walk away with a look of disgust.  And I need
no authority to do any of those things.
I don't NEED any authority to have an opinion of you and your
behavior.  I have the RIGHT to do so, because there is no law that
restricts against my having an opinion.
No, I certainly did not say that.  Indeed, in this thread, I have
discussed judges having authority under the legal system to judge
others for their alleged crimes.
The individual is the opinion-holder about what is good and evil.
Having an opinion is not judging.  In particular, an opinion is
subject to change (not that I expect you to grow a brain any time
soon), whereas a judgement is only subject to appeal to a higher
judge, if there is one.  An opinion only can be acted upon by the
person who holds that opinion, and then only by actions which are
permitted to him.  A judgement is implemented by the legal system.  My
opinion cannot restrict your actions or rights in any way.  A
judgement from someone in authority can.
I can never judge you evil for anyone, period.  Why would I want to?
God can do it oh so much better than I can.
I CAN, however, express my opinion to the world.  What the world
decides to do with my opinion is up to them.  I do have the confidence
that my opinion is much more respected than yours is, among those who
read Usenet.  But actually I would prefer everyone to make up their
own mind about you, being rather confident in the outcome of such an
effort, should anyone bother.
lojbab"
    @lojbab: "<quote>
No.  I say that you twist the Scriptures to suit your unholy opinions.
Do a concordance search on the New Testament, and find the number of
OTHER places where Jesus used the word "good" to describe something
other than God.  
For example
Matt 12:
<[35] A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
< good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
< evil things.
That sentence makes no sense, if "only God is good".
By your reasoning, Jesus contradicted himself.
(Of course, neither we nor any Bible records the actual words,
presumably in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, that Jesus actually spoke.
Perhaps He used a different word to describe God than in all those
other places that were translated to Greek and then to English, as
"good".  I don't call anyone by whatever Aramaic word Jesus used that
has been translated to English as "good".)
lojbab"
    @geovani_the_italian: "HAVE MY POSTS MADE ANTI-ISLAM TROLLS ANGRY!!
Have I now become anti-Islam trolls enemy by telling  the truth? The
information I present does not always go over well with all people. I
do hope you'll take the time when reading my messages, and see if you
can understand the truth a little bit better. After all how do you
choose to react to that truth is not my concern.
Since shortly after the first message was posted readers of the
Newsgroups have been writing to me. For the most part, I am happy to
say, the email has been highly complimentary about the articles, and
not unnaturally I read such messages with great pleasure.
Several of them, however, did more than merely give a boost to my ego,
the first one sowed the seed of an idea and those which followed
caused the seed to germinate."
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 34, "forum_name": "alt.religion.christian.20150102.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.religion.parquet'}