Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:211-240|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 2:35:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good.
And if you are asked the same question your answer is because your invisible friend told you so. Except that we know your invisible friend has never said a word.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 2:52:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 11:53:48 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:39:13 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 4:55:55 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:

Context and language determine whether something should or should not be taken literally. Does the language convey historical narrative or figurative speech? Who is it addressing and what, if any, are the time frames involved? What is the cultural significance of what was said to the people of address? These are things you have to take into consideration if you want to find the Author's meaning. These are the things so many people ignore as they try to project the prophesies into the distant future from when they were made.

so with regard to the bible how do you determine what is and what isn't to be taken literally?

You find the Author's meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you. If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said. The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying. Why would you treat God's word differently? As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things, yet basically you understand through God's word. The Bible interprets itself. God confirms what He says and this confirmation is brought out more fully when you compare Scripture with Scripture to get His meaning. When you rightly understand Scripture the confusion is cleared up. I have found this with the case of prophecy.

The way you hear evangelicals explain it is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

uh that in no way answered my question.
If it is that simple, how is it that so many interpretations of the bible exist? some take genesis literally. some claim the 7 days is not 24 hour periods some claim it isn't some claim adam and eve to be metaphors and some claim them to be real people
some take the story of a man living inside a whale as a literal story some don't - some even go as far as having a museum that includes little human beings and dinosaurs living together, and say that the dinosaurs were on the ark- no use in even going there

again how can you claim it to be easy to distinguish the historical from the metaphorical in the bible, when anyone can see it is not

I'm not going to keep repeating what I have said. Here it is one more time:

You find the Author's meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you. If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said. The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying. Why would you treat God's word differently? As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things, yet basically you understand through God's word.


God explains His meaning. You have to understand the context and its relationship to the audience of address, types of language being used.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 2:54:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 2:35:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good.
And if you are asked the same question your answer is because your invisible friend told you so. Except that we know your invisible friend has never said a word.

You know nothing of the kind.

Peter
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 3:10:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 2:52:33 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:53:48 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:39:13 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 4:55:55 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:

Context and language determine whether something should or should not be taken literally. Does the language convey historical narrative or figurative speech? Who is it addressing and what, if any, are the time frames involved? What is the cultural significance of what was said to the people of address? These are things you have to take into consideration if you want to find the Author's meaning. These are the things so many people ignore as they try to project the prophesies into the distant future from when they were made.

so with regard to the bible how do you determine what is and what isn't to be taken literally?

You find the Author's meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you. If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said. The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying. Why would you treat God's word differently? As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things, yet basically you understand through God's word. The Bible interprets itself. God confirms what He says and this confirmation is brought out more fully when you compare Scripture with Scripture to get His meaning. When you rightly understand Scripture the confusion is cleared up. I have found this with the case of prophecy.

The way you hear evangelicals explain it is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

uh that in no way answered my question.
If it is that simple, how is it that so many interpretations of the bible exist? some take genesis literally. some claim the 7 days is not 24 hour periods some claim it isn't some claim adam and eve to be metaphors and some claim them to be real people
some take the story of a man living inside a whale as a literal story some don't - some even go as far as having a museum that includes little human beings and dinosaurs living together, and say that the dinosaurs were on the ark- no use in even going there

again how can you claim it to be easy to distinguish the historical from the metaphorical in the bible, when anyone can see it is not

I'm not going to keep repeating what I have said. Here it is one more time:

You find the Author's

Which author.

meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you.

So which ever author it is is trying to defend themselves from having their belief show as absurd.

If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said.

That or what you have said didn't have meaning in the first place.

The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying.

Defending from demonstration of the beleif being absurd.

Why would you treat God's word differently?

Multiplie authors with varying context, as you are demonstrating.

As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things,

Goal post move, the time frame was 2000+ years ago, who was addressed were first God's chosen, then the audience changed, so must the interpretation.

yet basically you understand through God's word.

Which means pick a card, any card.

God explains His meaning. You have to understand the context and its relationship to the audience of address, types of language being used.

Peter

This literally means the Bible has no one translation at any given time, as such is subjective at its core. You aren't following a mandate or a God, you are worshiping what you see in an inkblot.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 3:14:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 6:44:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:

I have not seen many people argue that an objective morality exists independent of a god, but I also have yet to see anyone show that it cannot.

I would suggest that the opposite is true; any morality which comes as a dictate of a God is simply that God's subjective idea of morality. I don't know why anyone would assume that an emotional God's idea of morality somehow becomes objective, just because he's God. If God has a perspective or an opinion, that makes it subjective. And when we're talking about morality, we're talking about subjectivity. It simply is a subjective assessment no matter who makes that assessment. That said, morality is a social call, not an individual call.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 3:37:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 2:54:10 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 2:35:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good.
And if you are asked the same question your answer is because your invisible friend told you so. Except that we know your invisible friend has never said a word.

You know nothing of the kind.

Peter

I'm sorry but yes I do.
Provide evidence that your invisible friend has given you any morality at all.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 3:48:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 2:54:10 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 2:35:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good.
And if you are asked the same question your answer is because your invisible friend told you so. Except that we know your invisible friend has never said a word.

You know nothing of the kind.

Peter

Why would you present such a challenge? Ig God has ever said anything, wouldn't that be pretty easy to defend? Show us something that came from God, rather than just coming from a man who claimed it came from God. Muhammad claimed his words came from God, just as did Joseph Smith and David Koresh. Do you believe them?

Show us something God said, which didn't come as a mere claim from a man.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 4:06:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 12:14:39 AM, MEK wrote:
At 12/29/2014 9:15:49 PM, PGA wrote:

First, the bible is filled with so much contradiction that some have speculated that it is the most contradicted text ever produced.

Rubbish.

Okay, wait just a minute. "Rubbish"??? Do you really want to go down this road because if you do not concede that the bible is riddled with several contradictions I will provide so much evidence that you will be left spinning and grasping at figurative straws.

I concede no such thing and if you supply a list I will supply a website to refute your list. I'm not getting into every thing that someone else finds wrong with the Bible. Stick to the prophetic theme since that is what I laid claim to show you.

This is just a point made in response to your statement about the book coming together with consistency. Regardless, you have not proved that the old testament is prophetic.

Are you claiming there is no prophecy in the OT?

No. I am stating that the evidence insuring accurate documentation of when said "prophesies" were pronounced is based upon the cultural perception. For example, although it is possible to identify parallels between Bible verses and subsequently occurring events, alleged prophecy fulfillment is not sufficient to compel belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. For every example of some prophecy being fulfilled, I can give you examples of several prophecies that were not fulfilled.

I am not aware of every prophecy made in the Bible but I have sufficient knowledge to deal with many of them. I have made the claim the Matthew 24 radiates out into every part of the Bible. The author refers the reader to Daniel concerning the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15). Daniel mentions it three times.

Daniel 9:27
And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

Daniel 11:31
Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.


Daniel 12:11
From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.


This prophecy could not take place after AD 70 because there was no temple to desecrate after AD 70. In fact, Daniel constantly speaks of his people. Daniel was an Old Covenant prophet. The Old Covenant no longer existed after AD 70.

Jesus made a reference to not one letter of the law perishing until everything was fulfilled in Matthew 5:17-18 yet after AD 70 nothing is left of the OT sacrificial system, priesthood, temple, or ceremonial feast days. The OT people are scattered to the ends of the Roman Empire in fulfillment of both OT and NT prophesies.

Not one word is written about the Temple as already being destroyed in the NT yet in almost every book we see warnings of God's judgment on this OT people. The significance of this is not something you can just sweep under the rug and go merrily on whistling Dixie.

For example, Abraham lived apprx 1800 BCE and yet the earliest verification of him is 400 BCE. That is a 1400 year gap! How can you claim anyone writing these early Hebrew texts have any idea what happened a thousand years before with any accuracy?? Would be very easy to insert a prophecy here and there. Second, take Luke 21;5-30 where it says Jesus predicts the fall of the Jewish temple. Well, that's easy to feign especially if Luke was written after 70ad which is exactly when most scholars place Luke.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of how accurately preserved the OT texts have been copied. These scrolls are dated to between 250-100 BC. Regardless of anything else any prophecy found in the OT would have to predate these dates. :

I fail to see your point here.

The point is that you can't dismiss prophecy as being written after the fact that easily and you can't dismiss that they were accurately copies since these manuscripts predate the earliest we had until this discovery. It proves they were very careful scribes in copying the OT documents.

We also know of the painstaking trouble these scribes took in copying an OT manuscript. We have internal evidence that confirms other histories of the period and some external evidence found from archaeology. :

"Internal evidence"?? What about objective outside evidence that there IS NO evidence found in archaeology to support your claims. Who cares about biased inside evidence?, It simply is not credible.

Obviously you do not understand the significance of what is describe within correlating to the external evidence. The significance is that it is another confirmation that the biblical history matches other external histories.

One of the earliest documents associated with the NT is known as P 52 (some papyrus from John, I believe). It's origin, by carbon dating, is about 125 CE (which makes sense as it is believed John was the last gospel written).

Still does not tell me when your experts claim it was written.:

Yes it does - about 125 CE. What more do you want??

I'm speaking of the original. Are you claiming this P 52 was an original manuscript? Are you saying John wrote it or are you saying that John wrote the original and in AD 125 someone else made a copy?

That is about a century after Christ would have lived. It is widely known that Mark's gospel is the first with Matthew, Luke and John to follow. Dating for these has to do with the language structure used. It is also well known that none of the authors of the gospels were eye-witnesses.

It is not well known, it is well speculated. The early evidence is convincing that these were eyewitnesses and Matthew was one of the 12 disciples.:

What are you talking about??? You are simply confused - there is NO evidence to support YOUR speculation that Matthew was the first book written. There were no eye witnesses - period. Provide the evidence that states otherwise. Provide competing evidence that Mark was not written first.

http://realityisnotoptional.com...
http://realityisnotoptional.com...

Now I would be surprised no one has offered you this very well known collection of data found just about everywhere (books, internet, etc) and I have to wonder from what source are you deriving your information...

It has been offered yet I want to see where you place the dates that these books were written. Are you saying they were all written in the 2nd century onwards? If you are saying that no NT book was written before AD 70 you go against the scholarly consensus.:

No I am not.

No you are not what?

The non-religious, historical "scholarly consensus" states this and is generally accepted. You truly need to do more research in this area.

Secular scholars are led to find what they presuppose to be the case. I have researched it and those who have spent their lives researching it include many NT books written before AD 70. We know from tradition (the early church fathers) that Peter and Paul were martyred before AD 70. Do you deny this? Do you deny all these epistles that claim to be from Paul are not? It amazes me to what length you will go to ignore where the evidence leads.

Give me the consensus you accept for these writings then I will plaster you with scholarly dates that range in consistency depending on who and when given and after that I will include more evidence for an early dating.

Peter
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 4:18:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 4:06:29 AM, PGA wrote:

Read poor old mad's thread trying desperately to deny the bible contradictions and failing abysmally.
You would as well, because the contradictions are completely obvious to anyone who can read.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 4:31:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 12:50:00 AM, MEK wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:23:15 PM, PGA wrote:

Some, just like you have checked it out with some religious sources, right? That does not determine the truth of the matter.:

Yes, I have. In fact I used to be a Christian and studied it quite earnestly. And yes, comparing alternate view does help illuminate the truth.

You were not a Christian if you left the faith, just a professor of the faith. You look for truth that conforms to your basic foundational beliefs and ignore the rest. Don't tell me you are not biased.

For instance, do you understand the scope of the covenant God made with this Old Covenant people, the covenant of blessing and curses? How well do you understand this? After you answer this question I will continue with my rebuttal of your argument. :

Yes I do and it does not make sense with the world I know - so what?

That is because it does not concern the world you know so how could it make sense of it?

1. Paul, who existed approx. 35ad - 60ad wrote the first known accounts of what we now call Christianity. He would have been the closest living person to Christ and yet he only refers to Christ in the celestial sense and not here on earth. Never mentions Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, miracles, the human Jesus or Pontius Pilot . He only mentions Christ' death, resurrection and ascension but places these events in some mythical realm and NOT on earth ( Heb 8:4).

Good, so are you giving all the epistles attributed to him in the NT a date before AD 70?
This is the next thing I need to know.:

You have not addressed my point and are being obviously evasive. Nice try but this subterfuge does not escape my awareness that you have no answer to this contextual dilemma.

No, I don't want to have to backtrack constantly and have to re-establish ground because you are leading me on a wild goose chase. That is the point of getting these things out of the way first.

The book of Mark is, by almost ALL historians to be the first book of the NT and dated around 70ad. Matthew, Luke and John are copies. The early church fathers also recognized that there was a problem with selling Jesus as the one true son of god because before Jesus there were several other dying and rising gods (Mythra, Osiris, Dionysos, Hercules...) and they new the pagans would just say, "Why choose this one over the ones we have already discounted?) So in order fix this they came up with the notion that Satin invented these other gods to try and fool us. This crazy attempted ploys tells us something important - the early church fathers KNEW of these past similar gods.

What are you talking about? Scripture is not based on what a church father believed. It has a higher claim as being God's word and revelation to man. Why would I take what any man said if it went against God's word, especial when many were influenced by their culture and the predominant Hellenistic views?

First, the early church fathers have used almost every Scripture contained in the NT in their writings, so these Scriptures must have been available before they wrote.:

How could the early church fathers use NT writings if they weren't written yet?

Precisely, which means they had these writing, yet these writing had not been codified into what we know as the canon yet.

Moreover what does this have to do with my point about embellishing the "Jesus" story to support their new found political, christian purpose?

It shows that these writing, these letters, these gospels were around before you give them credit for being around.

If you want references to my claims I can give them to you but to just name a few:
Hector Avalos, author and Professor of religious studies University of Iowa and attended the Harvard Divinity school. John Loftus MA of Theology and author. Richard Carrier , PhD in ancient history from Columbia.:

I see no bias here, Mek! Great scholar he is! I see where his influence may possibly have washed off onto you in the making of the Jesus myth. You flock to atheist scholars who tickle your ears! :

You miss the point completely. Both Avalos and Loftus were Christians before they began their educated journeys. I do not "flock to atheists who tickle my ears" but toward those who have educated themselves away from the restricted, insular perceptions of religious dogma.

No they were not Christians. They just professed faith in Jesus. And the reason why Loftus left the faith seems fairly obvious to me. What are the credentials of Loftus and Avalos compared to say A.T. Robertson? What are their biases (I already pointed this out to you)?

If an academic in religious history is atheist - do you automatically discount his/her view?

I take it to hold a bias towards a certain belief system that denies the Bible and looks for conformation for this belief.

I take people like William L. Craig and Denesh d'souza very seriously and listen to their arguments. These are not atheists. I would expect you to do the same....unless you are afraid of what you might discover....

Same as above, except they affirm the Bible. They hold a bias towards the Christian worldview that I find more credible than your atheist counterparts.

Peter
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 4:45:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 4:31:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:50:00 AM, MEK wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:23:15 PM, PGA wrote:

Some, just like you have checked it out with some religious sources, right? That does not determine the truth of the matter.:

Yes, I have. In fact I used to be a Christian and studied it quite earnestly. And yes, comparing alternate view does help illuminate the truth.

You were not a Christian if you left the faith, just a professor of the faith. You look for truth that conforms to your basic foundational beliefs and ignore the rest. Don't tell me you are not biased.

That's the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". It's called that because it's a fallacy - false - untrue. And you should be purely ashamed of yourself for being so incredibly disingenuous as to try to wheel it out here... or anywhere else.

When was that last time you decided to dedicate your life to serving the Christian God? Bart D Ehrman did that. Robert M Price did that. Dan Barker did that. Matt Dillahunty had decided to do that. But these men had something you seem to lack... intellectual integrity. And when they had learned enough about Christianity, it's history, and the origin of the Bible, they could no longer lie to themselves. The first three were all Christian pastors (Price was a Catholic minister). Dillahunty was studying for seminary college. They're all outspoken atheists now because they listened to reason, applied logic to the claims of Christianity, and decided that they could no longer lie to themselves or others.

You, on the other hand, have maintained the ability to lie to yourself, and even pass those lies on to others. Shame on you! How dare you claim to hold the "truth" when you present such ridiculous fallacies! Go stand in the corner.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 4:50:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 4:31:30 AM, PGA wrote:
You were not a Christian if you left the faith, just a professor of the faith. You look for truth that conforms to your basic foundational beliefs and ignore the rest. Don't tell me you are not biased.
As a christian it's compulsory to believe ancient superstitions.
That is the only requirement, so anyone who believes the ancient superstitions is a true christian.
Thus defeating your claim.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 4:57:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 3:10:05 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/2/2015 2:52:33 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:53:48 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:39:13 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 4:55:55 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:

Context and language determine whether something should or should not be taken literally. Does the language convey historical narrative or figurative speech? Who is it addressing and what, if any, are the time frames involved? What is the cultural significance of what was said to the people of address? These are things you have to take into consideration if you want to find the Author's meaning. These are the things so many people ignore as they try to project the prophesies into the distant future from when they were made.

so with regard to the bible how do you determine what is and what isn't to be taken literally?

You find the Author's meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you. If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said. The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying. Why would you treat God's word differently? As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things, yet basically you understand through God's word. The Bible interprets itself. God confirms what He says and this confirmation is brought out more fully when you compare Scripture with Scripture to get His meaning. When you rightly understand Scripture the confusion is cleared up. I have found this with the case of prophecy.

The way you hear evangelicals explain it is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

uh that in no way answered my question.
If it is that simple, how is it that so many interpretations of the bible exist? some take genesis literally. some claim the 7 days is not 24 hour periods some claim it isn't some claim adam and eve to be metaphors and some claim them to be real people
some take the story of a man living inside a whale as a literal story some don't - some even go as far as having a museum that includes little human beings and dinosaurs living together, and say that the dinosaurs were on the ark- no use in even going there

again how can you claim it to be easy to distinguish the historical from the metaphorical in the bible, when anyone can see it is not

I'm not going to keep repeating what I have said. Here it is one more time:

You find the Author's

Which author.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (NASB)
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.


Acts 4:31
And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.


Acts 6:7
The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.


Colossians 1:25
Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,

meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you.

So which ever author it is is trying to defend themselves from having their belief show as absurd.

2 Peter 1:21
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said.

That or what you have said didn't have meaning in the first place.

But when this happens you know enough to ask me what I meant.

The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying.

Defending from demonstration of the beleif being absurd.

You do it all the time if I'm getting your intended meaning here. You wording does seem vague though.

Why would you treat God's word differently?

Multiplie authors with varying context, as you are demonstrating.

All confirming the same things.

As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things,

Goal post move, the time frame was 2000+ years ago, who was addressed were first God's chosen, then the audience changed, so must the interpretation.

The audience changed with the Jewish rejection of Jesus and those He sent out.

yet basically you understand through God's word.

Which means pick a card, any card.

To you because your worldview bias has blinded you.

God explains His meaning. You have to understand the context and its relationship to the audience of address, types of language being used.

This literally means the Bible has no one translation at any given time, as such is subjective at its core. You aren't following a mandate or a God, you are worshiping what you see in an inkblot.

Stop trying to force your meaning about what God's word says or doesn't say without giving specifics.

Peter
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 5:06:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

I'm not going to keep repeating what I have said. Here it is one more time:

You find the Author's

Which author.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (NASB)
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.


Acts 4:31
And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.


Acts 6:7
The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.


Colossians 1:25
Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,

Like I said, which Author? You just presented a few of them, right there.

meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you.

So which ever author it is is trying to defend themselves from having their belief show as absurd.

2 Peter 1:21
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said.

That or what you have said didn't have meaning in the first place.

But when this happens you know enough to ask me what I meant.

Yes, because what you have written is NOT self interpreting, thats the point.

The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying.

Defending from demonstration of the beleif being absurd.

You do it all the time if I'm getting your intended meaning here. You wording does seem vague though.

No, that is the context that you are writing from, and I am applying your instruction about self interpretation and context to the Bible. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't work.

Why would you treat God's word differently?

Multiplie authors with varying context, as you are demonstrating.

All confirming the same things.

That there are varying contexts from multiple authors, with different audiences, which means the inherent meaning is subjective depending upon the time, place, and reader, an no, its not confirming, again, that is the point here. If it was self interpreting, we wouldn't have a bazillion denomination splinter groups of Christianity.

As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things,

Goal post move, the time frame was 2000+ years ago, who was addressed were first God's chosen, then the audience changed, so must the interpretation.

The audience changed with the Jewish rejection of Jesus and those He sent out.

And therefore the context changed = subjective source.

yet basically you understand through God's word.

Which means pick a card, any card.

To you because your worldview bias has blinded you.

No, those are your instructions. I must interpret the Bible based on I think who the text was written for, or whom I think it was written for, written by, what audience, and basically do the Word of God's work for Him.

Politely, no thanks.

God explains His meaning. You have to understand the context and its relationship to the audience of address, types of language being used.

This literally means the Bible has no one translation at any given time, as such is subjective at its core. You aren't following a mandate or a God, you are worshiping what you see in an inkblot.

Stop trying to force your meaning about what God's word says or doesn't say without giving specifics.

No, thanks, again, I decline, because when it starts getting specific, the tired old 'well, in context, what you are stating really meant XYZ'. If its self interpreting, I can't 'force' God's word, it would be self evident.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 5:14:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 4:45:43 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/2/2015 4:31:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:50:00 AM, MEK wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:23:15 PM, PGA wrote:

Some, just like you have checked it out with some religious sources, right? That does not determine the truth of the matter.:

Yes, I have. In fact I used to be a Christian and studied it quite earnestly. And yes, comparing alternate view does help illuminate the truth.

You were not a Christian if you left the faith, just a professor of the faith. You look for truth that conforms to your basic foundational beliefs and ignore the rest. Don't tell me you are not biased.

That's the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". It's called that because it's a fallacy - false - untrue. And you should be purely ashamed of yourself for being so incredibly disingenuous as to try to wheel it out here... or anywhere else.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.


Matthew 12:30
[ The Unpardonable Sin ] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.


When was that last time you decided to dedicate your life to serving the Christian God? Bart D Ehrman did that. Robert M Price did that. Dan Barker did that. Matt Dillahunty had decided to do that. But these men had something you seem to lack... intellectual integrity.

Of course they did because they believe as you do! How can they have anything other than intellectual integrity when they confirm some of your beliefs? Again, your worldview bias is showing through.

And when they had learned enough about Christianity, it's history, and the origin of the Bible, they could no longer lie to themselves. The first three were all Christian pastors (Price was a Catholic minister). Dillahunty was studying for seminary college. They're all outspoken atheists now because they listened to reason, applied logic to the claims of Christianity, and decided that they could no longer lie to themselves or others.

They are atheists now because they put their own finite minds above that of God's. They decided they wanted to pursue their own autonomy rather than submit to God.

You, on the other hand, have maintained the ability to lie to yourself, and even pass those lies on to others. Shame on you! How dare you claim to hold the "truth" when you present such ridiculous fallacies! Go stand in the corner.

I do not recognize your authority over me. You think your subjective opinion holds sway because you in your pride and arrogance want to tell me what is true and what is not. I don't believe your pathetic arguments Beastt.

Peter
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 5:19:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 5:14:29 AM, PGA wrote:
You think your subjective opinion holds sway because you in your pride and arrogance want to tell me what is true and what is not.
As opposed to your subjective opinion that claims an invisible friend is giving you orders.
Look very hard @ that teddy bear and see if it's lips move.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 5:28:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 3:48:27 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/2/2015 2:54:10 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 2:35:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good.
And if you are asked the same question your answer is because your invisible friend told you so. Except that we know your invisible friend has never said a word.

You know nothing of the kind.

Peter

Why would you present such a challenge?

If rightfully understood.

Ig God has ever said anything, wouldn't that be pretty easy to defend? Show us something that came from God, rather than just coming from a man who claimed it came from God.

Matthew 24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Signs of Christ"s Return

24 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."

3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead many. 6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 Because lawlessness is increased, most people"s love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [g]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Perilous Times

15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, "Behold, here is the Christ," or "There He is," do not believe him. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, "Behold, He is in the wilderness," do not go out, or, "Behold, He is in the inner rooms," do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
The Glorious Return

29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Parable of the Fig Tree

32 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.



Muhammad claimed his words came from God, just as did Joseph Smith and David Koresh. Do you believe them?

Not a one.

Show us something God said, which didn't come as a mere claim from a man.

God inspired men and He spoke through them.

You have already made up your mind. You are not open to anything I have to say. It would be like throwing pearls before the swine.

Peter
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 5:47:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 5:28:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 3:48:27 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/2/2015 2:54:10 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 2:35:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good.
And if you are asked the same question your answer is because your invisible friend told you so. Except that we know your invisible friend has never said a word.

You know nothing of the kind.

Peter

Why would you present such a challenge?

If rightfully understood.

Ig God has ever said anything, wouldn't that be pretty easy to defend? Show us something that came from God, rather than just coming from a man who claimed it came from God.


Matthew 24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Signs of Christ"s Return

24 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."

3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead many. 6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 Because lawlessness is increased, most people"s love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [g]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Perilous Times

15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, "Behold, here is the Christ," or "There He is," do not believe him. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, "Behold, He is in the wilderness," do not go out, or, "Behold, He is in the inner rooms," do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
The Glorious Return

29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Parable of the Fig Tree

32 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.



Muhammad claimed his words came from God, just as did Joseph Smith and David Koresh. Do you believe them?

Not a one.

Show us something God said, which didn't come as a mere claim from a man.

God inspired men and He spoke through them.
This is why I have such a problem with theists who complain that they're being insulted when observations regarding their apparent intelligence are made. I said clearly... show us something God said "WHICH DIDN'T COME AS A MERE CLAIM FROM A MAN"!

Please review those words and tell me which one you didn't understand. Was it "which", or "didn't", or "come", or "as".. perhaps it was "a" or "mere" or "claim" or "from" or "man". Which ever word it was which was beyond your comprehension, please point it out and I'll sit you down like a small child and explain it to you.

You have already made up your mind. You are not open to anything I have to say. It would be like throwing pearls before the swine.
I'm not open to anyone who is so totally fallacious as to point to the claim of a man, and proclaim it as evidence that God actually spoke and it wasn't just the claim of a man. How silly!

Pearls are small irritants which have entered the protective shell of a soft mollusk, and has been coated with layers of a protective slime which harden over time.
Swine are loving, caring, intelligent animals who take very good care of their young, demonstrate strong companionship instincts, and can learn to respond appropriately to human language. Why can't you demonstrate that ability?


Peter
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Amoranemix
Posts: 562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:41:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
PGA 208
I'll think about it. The thing I have noticed about debates is that the vote does not necessarily reflect who had the better argument or the truths and falsities behind the arguments but how many friends and people of the same opinion you can get to side with you based on the same kind of preferences. I don't think this is fair.

It is the same old case as in every moral argument that proponents against God side with - majority rules, or those who hold the power determine the outcome, not what is necessary and needed for morality in the first place.
I have less posts than you and didn't try to make friends, so I see no reason why I would be at an advantage with the friends.
The inducement for becoming active here was an open debate (that is in a thread) about the moral argument. The problem was the only one reading my opponent's posts was me and the only one reading my posts was him. That way he could get away with spewing large amounts of nonsense. I didn't see a way I could win because he would never admit being wrong. So I asked myself 'How to win a debate when you are right ?' So I came here looking for advice. I thought about asking advice here for my case but didn't get to it. I also considered and am still considering setting up debating rules by which to score a debate, but didn't really get to it. An example of a few of such rules would be :

a) It is the prerogative of the side who makes an argument (the argumentator) to choose the definitions of the concepts in his argument, within reason.
b) If the argumentator does not define a concept used, the side interpreting the argument (interpreter) should attempt (within reason) to choose definitions the argumentator probably intended to use or use a definition that makes the argument most valuable or challenging.
c) If the interpreter rejects a (implicit) definition of the argumentator, (s)he must inform the argumentator of that, provide reason for the rejection and present an alternative definition.


The above rules stem from the problem that Christians are notoriously bad at defining concepts used in their arguments. I often find myself quarreling with them about definitions, which detracts from the arguments.
The idea was (and still is perhaps one day in the future) to discuss debating rules and try reaching a consensus. That way I could point out to Christians in a debate that they are violating a certain rule. It is similar to pointing out fallacies your opponent commits.

Here I met in a thread some Muslim who was being totally unreasonable and I noticed that the members here were also unable to deal with that (other than ignore him). So I had either to get to making that set of rules or make use of an alternative provided on this site : debates with voting. The audience should keep my opponent in check because spewing nonsense would make him look bad and he would lose. It also allows me to challenge someone who is being unreasonable to a formal debate, which they would have to decline, which I can take as a concession from them and leave it at that.

Debating the moral argument in this thread is going to be difficult and it is also off topic. I suspect starting a thread on the moral argument will be futile because theist won't put their heart in it. I also limit starting new threads to respect other people's threads.

PGA 159 to MEK
While this is true it is how you get to the point of knowledge that is in question. You have to know and suppose so much in getting there and build on a foundation and beliefs that these beliefs rest upon. That is where your worldview crumbles to the ground. It is there, when pressure is applied that it falls apart. My point is that you build on my worldview to get there, not your own.[6] You are therefore inconsistent to your core beliefs and what they arise from - mindless, irrational energy and matter without purpose, intent, agency or meaning, randomly acting to produce chemical and electrical impulses in your physical brain.
In order to have an interesting debate, one must start from common ground, i.e. use assumptions all sides agree upon. So there is nothing wrong with MEK relying on assumptions. You are doing the same.
[6] I don't know about MEK, but I don't build on your worldview, at least not on the parts that differ from mine.

PGA 160
I use what the Bible says and I back it up with early historical writing and with logical consistency. God is my highest authority, not subjective men 2,000 years removed from the times with presuppositional baggage trying to prove their intellectual smarts with their biases attached and all the while sifting the evidence through those biases.
Perhaps you could then help defend Genesis in 'The Bible's hilarious account of creation' (http://www.debate.org...).

Benshapiro 165
It wouldn't be subjective. Think of any objective thing or feature. Whatever this thing is, is definitely true. So objective basically just means to be definitely true. God's mind is only the definitive truth.[7] God's mind is objective.
God's mind entails all of his characteristics so God's mind and his nature are inseparable. I wouldn't say that God 'determines' morality. God's mind is only definitive truth - he can't act in any non-true way. To change an objective value would be impossible for God to do.
[7] Are you defining God's mind as 'the definite truth' of are you making a claim here and if so what claim ? Are you just saying that God is omniscient and cannot lie ?

- Benshapiro 162
It's always wrong to kill without necessary justification (objective)
- Bennett91 166
"It's always wrong" this is an absolute statement proving my point objective and absolute are are the same thing. Necessary justification is part of the context of the act.
I disagree. 'Without necessary justification' is the context, so the sentence doesn't state that it is always wrong. "It's always wrong" is not a sentence for it is not grammatically correct and thus open to interpretation.

PG 168
Sure I can. It is moral because it comes from a moral being who has revealed Himself to us and is greater. He explains it. The Sermon on the Mount is moral. Turning the other cheek is moral, looking out for others and putting them first is moral, considering others better than yourself is moral, love is moral, going the extra mile for someone else is moral.
Double_R didn't ask you to list moral rules you believe your God adheres to, but to prove these actions are benevolent. Anyone could just disagree, and decree that you should first look out for yourself, get what you want, increase your offspring, do onto others before they do it onto you, do whatever is beneficial for you and declare all that benevolent. Is that the world you want ?

- Double_R 155
Because he shows you he is good... This is the problem. "God is good" is a moral judgment. The point of my question is to ask you how you made that judgment.
- PGA 168
I made it by believing in Him, just like you do in believing in your finite mind(s) that tell you otherwise. Through His word He gave me greater understanding and confirmation.
Is there something wrong in believing in one's finite mind ? Do you believe in your finite mind ? Do you believe in God without using your finite mind ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:52:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 5:28:30 AM, PGA wrote:

God inspired men and He spoke through them.

You have already made up your mind. You are not open to anything I have to say. It would be like throwing pearls before the swine.

Peter

Hilarious, YOU are actually the one who has made up their mind, even though there isn't a shred of proof any men were ever inspired by any gods. You aren't throwing any pearls, you're throwing feces.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:02:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

I personally don't subscribe to the idea that God is necessary for objective morality, but I will put in my two cents all the same.

God is different from entropy, in that entropy isn't something we are directly subject to. We won't be held accountable to entropy for our actions, nor is it a personal forces that bears any opinion or standard as regards morality but is a natural force. If God is the source of morality, and we are only moral creatures because of some endowment of the same, then it would be natural to accept objective morality on this basis. That killing another human being is objectively wrong, because God would transcend culture and opinion as the ultimate standard.

I think the existence of consciousness makes morality a bit more complicated than that, but the above is an attempt to present a case for morality being objective because of God.

Let me know what you think.
Massive0
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:08:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Before you read any further,try to be level-headed about this.
In Christianity and/or other religions a God is universally viewed as a being immensely superior to human beings. The existence of a God is a prerequisite in any religion because it subjects all members of that religion to a universal doctrine which encompasses morality. If there was no God, there would be utter chaos.If one man says killing is acceptable, no one has a basis to disprove him because there is no God who can be credited with ushering in a moral code. To sum it all up, when morality comes into question in a religion, a God is needed to make sure that everyone has the same understanding of morality to prevent other people from coming up with their ideas about morality.
"Haters only hate because the truth you tell contradicts the lies they live"
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:37:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 8:08:50 AM, Massive0 wrote:
Before you read any further,try to be level-headed about this.
In Christianity and/or other religions a God is universally viewed as a being immensely superior to human beings. The existence of a God is a prerequisite in any religion because it subjects all members of that religion to a universal doctrine which encompasses morality. If there was no God, there would be utter chaos.If one man says killing is acceptable, no one has a basis to disprove him because there is no God who can be credited with ushering in a moral code. To sum it all up, when morality comes into question in a religion, a God is needed to make sure that everyone has the same understanding of morality to prevent other people from coming up with their ideas about morality.

Invalid assertion. No god is needed for a species to realize that killing each other off at a whim is detrimental to the species as a whole. That's just the base of it. Empathy and the ability to reason accounts for the rest. Your entire statement is based on an invalid and unproven assumption.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:43:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 8:08:50 AM, Massive0 wrote:
Before you read any further,try to be level-headed about this.
In Christianity and/or other religions a God is universally viewed as a being immensely superior to human beings. The existence of a God is a prerequisite in any religion because it subjects all members of that religion to a universal doctrine which encompasses morality. If there was no God, there would be utter chaos.If one man says killing is acceptable, no one has a basis to disprove him because there is no God who can be credited with ushering in a moral code. To sum it all up, when morality comes into question in a religion, a God is needed to make sure that everyone has the same understanding of morality to prevent other people from coming up with their ideas about morality.

That's very strange, the god you suggest provides morality and declares killing wrong is also the god who commits genocide.
Yeah I'll stick to what mankind has decided is moral.
Sociopaths have no mandate to set morals.
Massive0
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 9:01:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 8:43:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
That's very strange, the god you suggest provides morality and declares killing wrong is also the god who commits genocide.
Yeah I'll stick to what mankind has decided is moral.
Sociopaths have no mandate to set morals.

The God I suggest provides a moral code has no obligation to follow the rules he sets. It seems you are assuming that the God I speak of can only condemn something if he does not do it. Well, contrary to that, the God in question has the authority to declare a decree whilst his actions oppose it. He has his own reasons for doing this as his mind is superior to ours hence we are unable to understand those reasons.
"Haters only hate because the truth you tell contradicts the lies they live"
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 9:10:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 9:01:36 AM, Massive0 wrote:
At 1/2/2015 8:43:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
That's very strange, the god you suggest provides morality and declares killing wrong is also the god who commits genocide.
Yeah I'll stick to what mankind has decided is moral.
Sociopaths have no mandate to set morals.

The God I suggest provides a moral code has no obligation to follow the rules he sets. It seems you are assuming that the God I speak of can only condemn something if he does not do it. Well, contrary to that, the God in question has the authority to declare a decree whilst his actions oppose it. He has his own reasons for doing this as his mind is superior to ours hence we are unable to understand those reasons.

Allegedly he is perfectly moral and is therefore the basis of all morality, that by necessity means he most definitely does need to follow the perfectly morality that he is.
If he is not perfect morality then he cannot be the basis of morality.
It's really quite simple.
A mass murderer can't supply valid morals for anyone other than a mass murderer.
It's absolutely astounding that you people can't understand that.

I love how you people reduce your god's abilities so that he con conform to your beliefs.
I love how you can dismiss morality when applied to the ultimate perfectly moral being.
And you have no idea that you are doing it.
Indoctrination strong in this one is.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 9:15:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 9:01:36 AM, Massive0 wrote:
At 1/2/2015 8:43:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
That's very strange, the god you suggest provides morality and declares killing wrong is also the god who commits genocide.
Yeah I'll stick to what mankind has decided is moral.
Sociopaths have no mandate to set morals.

The God I suggest provides a moral code has no obligation to follow the rules he sets. It seems you are assuming that the God I speak of can only condemn something if he does not do it. Well, contrary to that, the God in question has the authority to declare a decree whilst his actions oppose it. He has his own reasons for doing this as his mind is superior to ours hence we are unable to understand those reasons.

Ah, the "We can't understand his reasoning" excuse for God to commit all the acts and sanctify those acts by his followers that he commands us not to commit.

There is no reason for genocide, for the murder of innocent children. Yes, I said murder for it was only your supposed god's temper that drove him to kill every living person on the planet except his favorite drunk and that family. It was for no valid reason that he told his followers to kill every thing that lived to include men, women, children, even livestock when they invaded a country. If you want to venerate a psychopath like that then have fun but don't try to justify that me.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 9:20:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/31/2014 7:22:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
Asking why my moral standards are good is a completely incoherent question. That's like asking why are the rules of basketball are basketball.

Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good.

The word "good" is a judgment. A judgment requires a standard to be judged against. You are asking me to judge my standard, and you expect me to do it without appealing back to my standard. If that is a coherent request then the same applies to you as well. You claim God is your standard, so explain to me why God is good without appealing back to him. If you can do that then I will as well. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 9:30:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/31/2014 7:22:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:01:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:37:34 AM, Double_R wrote:
All knowing is a useless characteristic for morality. Satan could be all knowing and still be evil.

Satan was not all knowing. How can a created being be all knowing when God alone has this attribute? Where are you getting your information from - just making it up?

OMG are you even trying to understand what I am saying? I really don't think so.

I made a logical statement, "Satan could be all knowing and still be evil". In other words the concept is consistent with logic. I was demonstrating why God being all knowing is a useless argument for morality. The idea that one is all knowing says nothing about whether one is good. That's all. Please pay attention.

No he could not. Evil does not contain goodness in it. It is the exact opposite of good. Satan is a created being. He had a beginning and is limited in his power and attributes. Show me where you get your information from to claim otherwise. Do you just make it up? I don't accept what you have to say as true knowledge. Who are you to determine truth about such matters?

You do not pay attention to a word I say. Show me one sentence where I made a factual claim regarding Satan.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 10:13:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 8:11:48 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
Double_R 150 to Benshapiro
You claim that God cannot change morality because it's his nature. You claim that his nature has no source. This leaves you with one of two options:
A) Morality does not come from God
B) God and Gods nature are the same thing.
I admit I don't understand how you get A. It seems to me that morality could come from God if his nature determines morality in some way. He could for example determine morality by example. If it is in God's nature to rape children for fun then that would make raping children for fun benevolent. If it is against his nature to help the poor, then helping the poor would be malevolent.
God could be the moral force SNP1 mentioned and his nature whatever that moral force strives for, which would by definition be benevolent.

To understand A let's start with B. Saying that God and his nature are the same thing is not speaking English. If I refer to your nature, I am referring to characteristics about you that do not change naturally and are beyond your control. If I refer to you, I am referring to you as an entity. An entity, and that entity's characteristics are two completely different concepts, demonstrated by the fact that you can logically apply those characteristics to another entity. Therefore B is incoherent nonsense.

That leaves us with A. Since God and his nature are separate things, and Ben claims that Gods nature (which is not the same thing as God) is the source of morality, then God cannot also be the source of morality. They are different things, so it's one or the other.

This allows us to realize that if God is not the source of morality, and God is not the source of his own nature (since his nature has no source), then God himself is a useless component of determining morality. In fact God is useless entirely. If everything he can do is determined by his nature which he did not create then his nature is ultimately responsible for everything, not him.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.