Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:241-270|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:12:14 PM
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 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.

repeating yourself is the problem - you keep saying the same thing over and over even though it isn't true, so I hope you don't keep repeating yourself.

If what you say is true and all you have to do is find the authors meaning using context etc etc - then why are there 5000 different interpretations of the same bible? why are there new earth christians who say dinosaurs were with people, why do some other christians say that god caused the big bang billions of years ago. why do some christians say there was no big bang. why do some christians say the 7 days is literal, why do some other christians say that the 7 days are jubilee years and are actually 1000 years per day, why do some christians say jesus was god, and others say he was god's son. If what you say is so obvious then where do all the methodists, catholics, 7 day adventiss, lutherans , baptists etc etc come from - everyone should be able to easily see what is and what isn't metaphorical and come to a consensus about what the book says and what it means.- and we aren't even talking about hindu, atheists, muslims, jain, sikh or any other religion I am talking about all the non agreement between those that use the same book supposedly have the same faith and the same god. - so yes you are right don't keep repeating yourself trying to tell me how simple it is to know what is meant in the bible. - after all every christian you meet will pick what to take literally if it suits his position and pick what to call metaphorical if it doesn't - it is that simple- hence its all of a sudden ok for a woman to not only speak in church but to pastor. all of a sudden gays don't automatically go to hell. and on and on. all of a sudden a camel must be able to pass through the eye of a needle because god wants everybody to be rich, we even have prosperity gospel now -- no confusion there
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Fatihah
Posts: 9,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:34:27 PM
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?

Response: Because humans were created, resulting in subjective morality, For what one person says is right and wrong will differ from another. Whereas Allah (God) is the originator of all of creation, thus sets the laws and standards and has authority on right and wrong.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 3:27:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How can God be objective when he has lost control,of his creation? God has failed to streamline human behaviour or morality. All his punitive actions have backfired. The Jews held God in such contempt they asked that he be crucified.
Where can we see how his objective morality differs from our subjective morality. The bible demonstrates just how arbitrarily justifiable and genocidal his means to an end are. It lacks compassion and is inhumanely homicidal. Every action of God results in death or suffering. Let us be objective about Gods morality, he has none.
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 3:33:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 4:06:29 AM, PGA wrote:

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.

What does referring me to a website do?? I can refer you to several websites that say Elvis is still alive and that we never navigated going to the moon".So what?? If I find passages which state the earth is flat or is being held up on pillars (obvious contradictions to the truth of the earth) what possible explanation can you provide? To say, "Oh, that is just a metaphor".." is a cop out, disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.


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. :

What are you talking about?? The only task these scribes were "painstakingly" attending to was the careful manipulation so that said prophecies could be seen as real. How can you not see that there was this type of manipulation to help support the religious dogma? And how can you forgive some prophecies" obvious failure with those that appear to have merit? You seem to like to play tennis without the net quite a bit.

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? :

You know when the original was written? Are YOU saying that P 52 could NOT be the original? How do you know when the first copy was made? You don't. All you have is written varification from an altered, copied text.

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.:

No there is not. You are simply wrong and making stuff up.

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?:

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

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?

Not going against the mainstream scholarly consensus.
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:

No, secular scholars do not presuppose anything because they do not have to. Most form the opinions or ideas from following the evidence. In the case of biblical authenticity - the evidence of sparse to non-existent.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 5:47:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
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:
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.
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.

Tell me what you didn't understand when I said that God inspired men and spoke through them? This is revealed in the NT:

2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


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


As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it. The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.

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!

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Examine your own worldview and its subjective nature. Your authority is either derived from your subjective mind or that of someone else on something that you have no certainty of yet you throw these false accusations at others as soon as your worldview is brought to light. You are a law unto yourself. I don't buy what you peddle.

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.

Obviously you have missed the meaning of throwing pearls before swine.

Why can't you demonstrate that ability?

In other words, why don't I follow your lead and believe what you tell me because of this giant intellect you have so that I can make sense of everything.

The problem is you have to presuppose that the evidence you have is a true reflection of what actually happened yet you ignore the Bible itself as history. The tide turned with German Higher Criticism. It became fashionable to undermine God's word.

Peter
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:08:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 5:47:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
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:
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.

Tell me what you didn't understand when I said that God inspired men and spoke through them? This is revealed in the NT:

2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


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

No, it's not "REVEALED" in the New Testament. It's just a claim. And it's a claim which is hilarious in its lack of veracity if you examine the process through which the Bible canon was formed. Do you even know? Are you aware that it took 42-years of political scams, coups, attrition and in-fighting before a canon was chosen? What magical ability did these men have? Since they rarely agreed, and often presented some rather large minorities, it's obviously not a case of God working through them. And even once a canon was selected and Constantine insisted that all of the members sign that the scripture selected was the word of God, some of the men STILL refused to sign, despite the consequence of exile and excommunication. It seems that even some of the men involved in generating the Bible canon felt so strong that it was NOT the word of God, that they were willing to risk everything they had to avoid signing. Have you ever thought about that?

How friggin' hard is it to select a writing which claims that it and all other scripture is inspired by God? Why doesn't it occur to you that at the time that was written, the process of deciding what was "scripture" and what wasn't, hadn't taken place yet. So no matter what the council selected, as long as they included Timothy and Peter, it's suddenly "inspired by God", just because two of the writings make that completely unevidenced claim. Had "Mein Kampf" existed then, the council could have combined 2nd Timothy, 2nd Peter and the entire work of "Mein Kampf" and today you'd be sitting her telling me that it's all inspired by God, because you fear actually thinking about anything to do with your beliefs.

As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it.
And what is the problem with placing writings which are actually shown to be true above writings which are shown to be false?

The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.
Do you understand absolutely everything there is to know about water? Do you know absolutely everything there is to know about water and ascorbic acid? If I told you that if you pass the proper voltage through a combination of water and ascorbic acid, that a bar of solid gold will form between the cathode and the anode, would you doubt me? Why? You don't know everything there is to know. Or is it possible that you know enough to not just doubt the claim, but actually laugh and thumb your nose?

I don't know everything there is to know about space, nor do I know everything there is to know about growing grasses, herbs and fruit trees. But I do know enough to be absolutely certain that if you try to grow grasses, fruit trees and herbs in temperatures near that of space, you're going to have a lot of deeply frozen, dead plants... and nothing more. And with that knowledge, I can say without the slightest fear of reprisal, that the Bible is not true.

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!

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
Well, we're actually all bred together in absolute secrecy and we are trained from the time we're 2-years old to do this. Either that, or it's simply your over-active imagination that makes you want to make such fallacious sweeping generalizations. No one put words in your mouth. I asked a question with a qualifier, and you completely ignored the qualifier. And you did that because you can't satisfy that qualifier. You have absolutely no indication whatsoever that God has ever said a single word. Every single claim you've ever heard, read, or uttered has simply been the unevidenced and contraindicated claim of one man or another. So you're just spewing stories, and you can't bring yourself to admit that.

Examine your own worldview and its subjective nature.
It has a rather objective nature - far FAR more objective, in fact, than the demonstrably fallacious world-view that you hold.

Your authority is either derived from your subjective mind or that of someone else on something that you have no certainty of yet you throw these false accusations at others as soon as your worldview is brought to light. You are a law unto yourself. I don't buy what you peddle.
It's clear that you don't buy what I peddle because you're so busy making a lifetime of wasted payments on the demonstrably false garbage being peddled by men in the 4th century - some of which didn't even believe it themselves! But no, my world view is highly objective while yours is utterly devoid of objectivity.

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.

Obviously you have missed the meaning of throwing pearls before swine.
No, I understand what you think it says. I'm pointing out to you what it actually says. Pearls are far less valuable than actual living creatures. Of course, your Bible, which is supposed to contain such truth, isn't aware of that. You put pearls on a string and wear them as a body decoration. And? Why does that make them valuable? You can't eat them, grow them or breed them. They're useless.

Why can't you demonstrate that ability?
I did. But you missed it because you don't have that ability.

In other words, why don't I follow your lead and believe what you tell me because of this giant intellect you have so that I can make sense of everything.
Because you lack the necessary intellect.

Peter
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:32:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:

As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it. The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.

Not sure if you've been living in a cave these past few centuries, but you may need to understand that the Bible is NOT an authority of any kind in societies.

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!

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Examine your own worldview and its subjective nature. Your authority is either derived from your subjective mind or that of someone else on something that you have no certainty of yet you throw these false accusations at others as soon as your worldview is brought to light. You are a law unto yourself. I don't buy what you peddle.

You have no choice but to live by the laws of your society, which most likely are laws made by men and not your Bible.

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.

Obviously you have missed the meaning of throwing pearls before swine.

Why can't you demonstrate that ability?

In other words, why don't I follow your lead and believe what you tell me because of this giant intellect you have so that I can make sense of everything.

The problem is you have to presuppose that the evidence you have is a true reflection of what actually happened yet you ignore the Bible itself as history. The tide turned with German Higher Criticism. It became fashionable to undermine God's word.

Peter
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
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:51:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:
As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word
And once again, the bible never makes that claim.
When will you understand that just saying something doesn't make it so?
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 9:28:05 PM
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.

You've just made a logical fallacy, but moreover, I look for truth in axioms that conform with the rules of logic, reason and scientific inquiry without any presupposition of supernatural or metaphysical claims. This is all I am asking you to do.

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?:

Peter, the world I know is the world you know as well. Stop playing religious language games with me.

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?:
Yes, that is correct but the attributions to him do not align with the descriptions of him from the apostles. This is my point.

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. :

What goose chase am I leading you on??? All I have done is presented the basis for my argument that Paul did not know Christ and came before any apostle. How do you justify this with your current understanding of eye witness accounts of any of the apostles?

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?

How do you know it's "God's word" when all you have to rely on is a man made book? And if God had any revelation to give to man, why would he not tell man that the planet was round instead of flat? Why wouldn't God tell him about gravity or germ cell theory?

Don't you see the obvious conundrum your have here?

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.

It is not me who "give them credit", it is mainstream academia (archeology, anthropology, etc) that places the gospels long after you and most Christians believe. I have the science to back up my argument. What do you have.?... a 2000 year old book that is known to be widely embellished inaccurate.

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.:

But you have to ask yourself the obvious question - why would one deny the bibles authenticity?
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:31:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 9:20:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
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.

Yes, it is a judgment of what is right. You claim that your beliefs are good because it is a standard you make up or derive from others who make up a standard. What is good about that? Why is the standard you make good based on preference?

A judgment requires a standard to be judged against.

Exactly. Yet a standard that keeps changing or has no objective criteria for goodness, just what is liked, is not based on goodness, it is based on likes, on personal preference. Why is your personal preference good when mine opposes yours?

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.

Why would I want to do that, replace an objective universal standard and authority that knows what is good and is good for your relative limited standard that appeals to personal preference and then labels that good? If God is my reference point for goodness then why would I appeal to something less authoritative?

If you can do that then I will as well. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Before we can judge that a is better than b we must first know the standard - x - from which we measure a and b to, that it is good. You can't compare goodness to a shifting/changing standard. We can't compare a to b in its relation to goodness if x, the standard, constantly changes depending on opinion and taste. If you don't know what is best - x, what is perfect, that there is such a standard, then how can you know that your standard falls short of the best or that it is actually good?

When you say, "I do what is right or good" all you are saying is "I do what I like." That is what you have appealed to above, what I underlined.

What I see you saying above with "my standard" is that "It ain't good until I call it good." If all we have is our individual or group standards of likes and calling things good that we like then what grounds do we have to say that our moral code is better than that of another individuals or another group? Who are you to pass judgment on me because you like something different than I like? If you don't have a best standard as your measure of rightness or goodness then how can you be more right than I am, or even right in the first place?

In a society that once thought that abortion and same-sex marriage was wrong how can it now judge that it is right. Its standard is shifting. It can't unless there is a standard that transcends our likes and dislikes? How can we judge it better now than it was then without this standard? If relativism is true then how can you say that your standard is better than my standard and why should I be tolerant to your standard when I have my own - thank you very much.

Where do we draw the boundary line? In each society there are cultures and subcultures that think differently to the society at large. Why are their views any less true than the society at large? What happens if I belong to two or more different conflicting groups within a society at large that have no fixed address but conflicting addresses for their standard on a particular issue. Who is right on matters of ethics when this happens?

Now with other things you apply an objective universal principle to things, such as the laws of mathematics. You have a standard that says that 2+2=4 and cannot equal anything else and still be true in the law of addition of two whole numbers, yet for moral principles you want them to remain subjective, relative, non-universal, because to do otherwise you would have to appeal to this unchanging standard. You understand the significance of doing this so you try to avoid admitting there is such a standard at all costs.

In every way you look at your system of ethics/morality you find inconsistency and opinion that is not based on truth but feelings/likes verses dislikes/taste/preference. Don't call it good, call it what it is - senseless.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:55:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 1:12:14 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING 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:
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.

repeating yourself is the problem - you keep saying the same thing over and over even though it isn't true, so I hope you don't keep repeating yourself.

You don't seem to be able to grasp my meaning. You keep ignoring what I have said, looking past it.

If what you say is true and all you have to do is find the authors meaning using context etc etc - then why are there 5000 different interpretations of the same bible?

Context and when context seems vague to you find another passage where the same issues are being addressed.

For instance in Matthew 24 Jesus is speaking to His disciples about things that will come to pass within that generation. Someone comes along 2, 12 or 20 centuries removed and says that Jesus is speaking generically, not specifically. That is not what the words convey in the context. They convey that He carried on the discussion from Matthew 23. If you are not sure who these disciples are then compare the other two accounts of His Olivet Discourse. One account actually lists the disciples. Yet people still try to apply the discourse to our day and time because they ignore the context and other Scripture on the same issue which supplies other details.

Different interpretations come from people reading into the text their meaning, what they want it to say, instead of taking out of the text what the Author is saying.

why are there new earth christians who say dinosaurs were with people, why do some other christians say that god caused the big bang billions of years ago. why do some christians say there was no big bang. why do some christians say the 7 days is literal, why do some other christians say that the 7 days are jubilee years and are actually 1000 years per day, why do some christians say jesus was god, and others say he was god's son. If what you say is so obvious then where do all the methodists, catholics, 7 day adventiss, lutherans , baptists etc etc come from - everyone should be able to easily see what is and what isn't metaphorical and come to a consensus about what the book says and what it means.- and we aren't even talking about hindu, atheists, muslims, jain, sikh or any other religion I am talking about all the non agreement between those that use the same book supposedly have the same faith and the same god. - so yes you are right don't keep repeating yourself trying to tell me how simple it is to know what is meant in the bible. - after all every christian you meet will pick what to take literally if it suits his position and pick what to call metaphorical if it doesn't - it is that simple- hence its all of a sudden ok for a woman to not only speak in church but to pastor. all of a sudden gays don't automatically go to hell. and on and on. all of a sudden a camel must be able to pass through the eye of a needle because god wants everybody to be rich, we even have prosperity gospel now -- no confusion there

Same reason as my last response, people read into the text what they want it to mean instead of taking out of the text what the Author intends to convey. I have offered to show this yet atheists run from such confrontations. There is a correct interpretation of Scripture - understanding the Author's meaning.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:57:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 9:30:05 AM, Double_R wrote:
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.

That is just the point, you didn't.

Peter
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 11:31:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 9:20:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
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.

Why would I want to do that, replace an objective universal standard and authority that knows what is good and is good for your relative limited standard that appeals to personal preference and then labels that good? If God is my reference point for goodness then why would I appeal to something less authoritative?

You are not even trying to communicate. You are just rehearsing the same nonsense over and over without paying attention to a thing I am saying. Please stop breaking up my responses into sentence by sentence rebuttals. If there is any indicator that one is looking for trigger words and phrases as opposed to attempting intellectual discussion it is that.

The entire point here is to get you to demonstrate the coherence of asking me to explain why a moral standard is good. It is not a coherent question. I am asking you to do the exact same thing that you are asking me, to explain why your moral standard (God) is good without referring back to it. You can't. The simple fact that you can't demonstrates the incoherence of your question. That's the point.

So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:30:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 3:33:27 PM, MEK wrote:
At 1/2/2015 4:06:29 AM, PGA wrote:

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.

What does referring me to a website do??

It says to you that I'm not getting into every supposed biblical contradiction you can think of or borrow from AtheistsRUs. If you want to find answers to such question then consult the link because I'm not going off on a wild goose chase. That is what the link says - that is my intention of providing the link. I don't care whether you use it or not but just be aware that there are answers to these alleged contradictions.

I can refer you to several websites that say Elvis is still alive and that we never navigated going to the moon".So what?? If I find passages which state the earth is flat or is being held up on pillars (obvious contradictions to the truth of the earth) what possible explanation can you provide? To say, "Oh, that is just a metaphor".." is a cop out, disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

You keep switching categories. What does Elvis or the Spaghetti Monster have to do with our discussion?

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. :

What are you talking about?? The only task these scribes were "painstakingly" attending to was the careful manipulation so that said prophecies could be seen as real. How can you not see that there was this type of manipulation to help support the religious dogma? And how can you forgive some prophecies" obvious failure with those that appear to have merit? You seem to like to play tennis without the net quite a bit.

That is a false statement. If you have a manuscript written in 200 BC that is identical to one written in AD 900 except for an odd spelling error then this shows that the AD 900 copy was extremely well preserved and that nothing was added to the text before or after the event.

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? :

You know when the original was written? Are YOU saying that P 52 could NOT be the original? How do you know when the first copy was made? You don't. All you have is written varification from an altered, copied text.

Yes, I am saying that P 52 was not the original. Can you show otherwise? And how do you know the text was altered? You don't. You read this into history because it agrees with your worldview that says the Bible is not the word of God. You try to make this as the case, yet most scholars until recently what with German Higher Criticism and the Jesus Seminar took the manuscripts for what they claimed.

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.:

No there is not. You are simply wrong and making stuff up.

Rubbish. I can get into this further yet I want to see your evidence against it being speculation first - go ahead.

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?:

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

http://www.inplainsite.org...
http://www.preteristarchive.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://datingthenewtestament.com...
http://datingthenewtestament.com...

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?

Not going against the mainstream scholarly consensus.
The non-religious, historical "scholarly consensus" states this and is generally accepted. You truly need to do more research in this area.

No, you do. Non-religious scholars are not the only scholars. List a few of those "scholars: for me.

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:

No, secular scholars do not presuppose anything because they do not have to.

Sure they do. It would be impossible to form any opinion without already presupposing something and in the case of dating the NT this is also the case.

Most form the opinions or ideas from following the evidence. In the case of biblical authenticity - the evidence of sparse to non-existent.

They follow the evidence from a worldview bias.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:54:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 7:08:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 5:47:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
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:
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.

Tell me what you didn't understand when I said that God inspired men and spoke through them? This is revealed in the NT:

2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


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

No, it's not "REVEALED" in the New Testament. It's just a claim.

Again, prophecy is a confirmation that God's word is true, that He has revealed Himself to us.

I have opened two threads on this topic if you want to challenge it?

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

And it's a claim which is hilarious in its lack of veracity if you examine the process through which the Bible canon was formed. Do you even know? Are you aware that it took 42-years of political scams, coups, attrition and in-fighting before a canon was chosen? What magical ability did these men have? Since they rarely agreed, and often presented some rather large minorities, it's obviously not a case of God working through them. And even once a canon was selected and Constantine insisted that all of the members sign that the scripture selected was the word of God, some of the men STILL refused to sign, despite the consequence of exile and excommunication. It seems that even some of the men involved in generating the Bible canon felt so strong that it was NOT the word of God, that they were willing to risk everything they had to avoid signing. Have you ever thought about that?

Yes, I have thought about it and examined some of the evidence, read about the councils and some of the church fathers, read some of the better known scholars on this topic. I have some of this literature in my library. I see it as a confirmation that we have the word of God, and the Bible is still my highest authority on the matter. As much as you would like to you can't ignore the prophetic fulfillment of the OT and NT concerning God's dealings with this people.

How friggin' hard is it to select a writing which claims that it and all other scripture is inspired by God? Why doesn't it occur to you that at the time that was written, the process of deciding what was "scripture" and what wasn't, hadn't taken place yet. So no matter what the council selected, as long as they included Timothy and Peter, it's suddenly "inspired by God", just because two of the writings make that completely unevidenced claim. Had "Mein Kampf" existed then, the council could have combined 2nd Timothy, 2nd Peter and the entire work of "Mein Kampf" and today you'd be sitting her telling me that it's all inspired by God, because you fear actually thinking about anything to do with your beliefs.

How silly, to include Mein Kampf in the same breathe with the Bible.

The councils were closer to the events of the times than you and I are. They had better preserved testimonies and more information on who wrote what to dig up what actual books were attributed to and written by the disciples/apostles than we have today.

As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it.
And what is the problem with placing writings which are actually shown to be true above writings which are shown to be false?

You have not show them to be false. I'm sure you have heaped up scholars that favor your position that come with worldview baggage attached, just like I have, so if you want to discuss it then I suggest you start by refuting my claims in the two threads provided above. We can get into the whole gambit of evidence there.

The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.
Do you understand absolutely everything there is to know about water? Do you know absolutely everything there is to know about water and ascorbic acid? If I told you that if you pass the proper voltage through a combination of water and ascorbic acid, that a bar of solid gold will form between the cathode and the anode, would you doubt me? Why? You don't know everything there is to know. Or is it possible that you know enough to not just doubt the claim, but actually laugh and thumb your nose?

No, I don't know everything about water but neither do you. I know of One who does. Both our understandings are limited and without God our references are the limited understandings of humans who look back on the past. What would be necessary for certain knowledge would be for God to reveal it to us in the case of origins. That is what the biblical claim is and the Bible gives us many convincing proofs that when you try to dispute them the irrationality of your worldview starts to unravel.

I am willing to show you this through prophecy.

I don't know everything there is to know about space, nor do I know everything there is to know about growing grasses, herbs and fruit trees. But I do know enough to be absolutely certain that if you try to grow grasses, fruit trees and herbs in temperatures near that of space, you're going to have a lot of deeply frozen, dead plants... and nothing more. And with that knowledge, I can say without the slightest fear of reprisal, that the Bible is not true.

And I can say that it is true. Big deal. What do I value of your limited knowledge that is constantly changing in your learning and comes with particular bias and prejudice?

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
Well, we're actually all bred together in absolute secrecy and we are trained from the time we're 2-years old to do this. Either that, or it's simply your over-active imagination that makes you want to make such fallacious sweeping generalizations. No one put words in your mouth. I asked a question with a qualifier, and you completely ignored the qualifier. And you did that because you can't satisfy that qualifier. You have absolutely no indication whatsoever that God has ever said a single word. Every single claim you've ever heard, read, or uttered has simply been the unevidenced and contraindicated claim of one man or another. So you're just spewing stories, and you can't bring yourself to admit that.

I have been trying to get you guys to qualify how you know that what you know as good throughout this thread is actually good and all I get is what you like and dislike. Based on that criteria you don't have goodness, you have personal tastes. You can't qualify that what you believe is good because your reference point is unstable, just like the rest of your philosophic wanderings.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:56:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 7:51:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:
As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word
And once again, the bible never makes that claim.
When will you understand that just saying something doesn't make it so?

When will you understand that the words written in the Bible do make this claim and that I am referring to these words and they do say this?

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
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?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).

And it doesn't show anything about God existing. Unbiased morality doesn't exist. It isn't a sensible argument. Never has been and it never will be. It's a philosophical argument if anything.

Why would I take your word for it? What makes your word genuine, true knowledge of the subject?

Peter

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:14:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 7:32:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:

As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it. The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.

Not sure if you've been living in a cave these past few centuries, but you may need to understand that the Bible is NOT an authority of any kind in societies.

Irregardless, it is the highest authority that I can appeal to. That is where you and I differ in our worldview analysis.

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!

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Examine your own worldview and its subjective nature. Your authority is either derived from your subjective mind or that of someone else on something that you have no certainty of yet you throw these false accusations at others as soon as your worldview is brought to light. You are a law unto yourself. I don't buy what you peddle.

You have no choice but to live by the laws of your society, which most likely are laws made by men and not your Bible.

Sure, but I can also know when these laws oppose God's council, His revelation, and know they are wrong because of this. You have nothing concrete to ground goodness on.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:45:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 9:28:05 PM, MEK 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.

You've just made a logical fallacy, but moreover, I look for truth in axioms that conform with the rules of logic, reason and scientific inquiry without any presupposition of supernatural or metaphysical claims. This is all I am asking you to do.

No, I have not. It is stated that someone who leaves the faith was never really in the faith. They professed yet did not possess true faith.

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.


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?:

Peter, the world I know is the world you know as well. Stop playing religious language games with me.

That is not true. The world under discussion is the world they lived in, not the world 20 centuries remove. You have made a categorical error in thinking that the teaching reflects our world today.

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?:
Yes, that is correct but the attributions to him do not align with the descriptions of him from the apostles. This is my point.

Where do you get this information (misinformation) from?

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. :

What goose chase am I leading you on??? All I have done is presented the basis for my argument that Paul did not know Christ and came before any apostle. How do you justify this with your current understanding of eye witness accounts of any of the apostles?

The Bible reveals that he did know Christ as one abnormally born, after the fact of Jesus' ministry, that in fact Jesus revealed Himself to Paul and gave him his mission.

I want you to establish from your prime sources (and who they are) when they attribute these letters and gospels as to having been written because most of the scholarly witness that I have seen gives at least some of these writings before AD 70. If you say none have then I can work from that to undermine your claim. If you say some have I can work from that to establish that all have been written before.

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?

How do you know it's "God's word" when all you have to rely on is a man made book? And if God had any revelation to give to man, why would he not tell man that the planet was round instead of flat? Why wouldn't God tell him about gravity or germ cell theory?

I take His word, His authority as my highest authority and I can make sense of it. You can't. You run into all kinds of roadblocks in denying His word.

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.


It is illogical to believe that God is going to reveal Himself to you when you don't even believe anything He says.

Don't you see the obvious conundrum your have here?

No, we all gravitate to our highest authority or else it would not be our highest authority. What would you say yours was - your mind or that of some other subjective limited mind?

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.

It is not me who "give them credit", it is mainstream academia (archeology, anthropology, etc) that places the gospels long after you and most Christians believe. I have the science to back up my argument. What do you have.?... a 2000 year old book that is known to be widely embellished inaccurate.

I have formed two threads that we can discuss this in. See my post to Beastt.

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.:

But you have to ask yourself the obvious question - why would one deny the bibles authenticity?

For the very purpose of undermining it and promoting a different worldview.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/2/2015 11:31:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 9:20:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
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.

Why would I want to do that, replace an objective universal standard and authority that knows what is good and is good for your relative limited standard that appeals to personal preference and then labels that good? If God is my reference point for goodness then why would I appeal to something less authoritative?

You are not even trying to communicate. You are just rehearsing the same nonsense over and over without paying attention to a thing I am saying.

Neither are you to me. It is the same old from you also.

Please stop breaking up my responses into sentence by sentence rebuttals. If there is any indicator that one is looking for trigger words and phrases as opposed to attempting intellectual discussion it is that.

You are making different claims with each new sentence. You keep throwing qualitative statements around and I am holding you accountable for making them.

The entire point here is to get you to demonstrate the coherence of asking me to explain why a moral standard is good. It is not a coherent question. I am asking you to do the exact same thing that you are asking me, to explain why your moral standard (God) is good without referring back to it. You can't. The simple fact that you can't demonstrates the incoherence of your question. That's the point.

I already did in the last post to you and you totally ignored what was said which only proves to my thinking that it is you who has the incoherent worldview, incapable of making sense of itself without its special pleading that it is so because you or others like it to be so, not because it is good.

So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it outside of God so you make all kinds of innuendos about my questions being incoherent.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 1:04:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 12:14:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 7:32:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:

As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it. The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.

Not sure if you've been living in a cave these past few centuries, but you may need to understand that the Bible is NOT an authority of any kind in societies.

Irregardless, it is the highest authority that I can appeal to. That is where you and I differ in our worldview analysis.

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!

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Examine your own worldview and its subjective nature. Your authority is either derived from your subjective mind or that of someone else on something that you have no certainty of yet you throw these false accusations at others as soon as your worldview is brought to light. You are a law unto yourself. I don't buy what you peddle.

You have no choice but to live by the laws of your society, which most likely are laws made by men and not your Bible.

Sure, but I can also know when these laws oppose God's council, His revelation, and know they are wrong because of this. You have nothing concrete to ground goodness on.

Peter

It is amazing the highest authority that you can reference comes from the Bible. The Bible does not even meet the minimum requirements to be taught in schools. The bible cannot be applied to science, legal system, history, mathematics , astronomy , cosmology, etc. etc. it has no use or relevance outside of an indulgent group of supernaturalist aghast their God is reduced to a wooden cross that symbolizes the futility of delusional behaviour.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
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?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).

And it doesn't show anything about God existing. Unbiased morality doesn't exist. It isn't a sensible argument. Never has been and it never will be. It's a philosophical argument if anything.

Why would I take your word for it? What makes your word genuine, true knowledge of the subject?

Peter

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 1:21:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
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?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).

And it doesn't show anything about God existing. Unbiased morality doesn't exist. It isn't a sensible argument. Never has been and it never will be. It's a philosophical argument if anything.

Why would I take your word for it? What makes your word genuine, true knowledge of the subject?

Peter

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

But there are many God both in the Bible and other religions. The only bias that is apparent here is selection bias.
The God of the bible is seeped in contradictions and genocidal excesses, unfit to fix a creation horribly gone wrong and destined for perversion

GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (NKJV)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 1:55:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 12:14:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 7:32:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:

As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it. The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.

Not sure if you've been living in a cave these past few centuries, but you may need to understand that the Bible is NOT an authority of any kind in societies.

Irregardless, it is the highest authority that I can appeal to. That is where you and I differ in our worldview analysis.

Yes, your authority is based on Bronze age myths and superstitions, that is why they have no authority. You're free to appeal to that at your leisure, but don't be under the delusion your authority is any kind of an authority in reality.

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!

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Examine your own worldview and its subjective nature. Your authority is either derived from your subjective mind or that of someone else on something that you have no certainty of yet you throw these false accusations at others as soon as your worldview is brought to light. You are a law unto yourself. I don't buy what you peddle.

You have no choice but to live by the laws of your society, which most likely are laws made by men and not your Bible.

Sure, but I can also know when these laws oppose God's council, His revelation, and know they are wrong because of this. You have nothing concrete to ground goodness on.

Peter

It doesn't matter whether you know they oppose or not, you must follow them nonetheless, irregardless if they oppose your God.
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
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 3:43:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it

No, I have no adequate answer for it because it is incoherent. I have explained why it is incoherent several times and gave you every opportunity to prove my point wrong. You won't even bother. I'm done with this pointless discussion. Debate me on the this. At least then someone will read what I write.
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 4:02:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/2/2015 11:31:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2015 9:20:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
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.

Why would I want to do that, replace an objective universal standard and authority that knows what is good and is good for your relative limited standard that appeals to personal preference and then labels that good? If God is my reference point for goodness then why would I appeal to something less authoritative?

You are not even trying to communicate. You are just rehearsing the same nonsense over and over without paying attention to a thing I am saying.

Neither are you to me. It is the same old from you also.

Please stop breaking up my responses into sentence by sentence rebuttals. If there is any indicator that one is looking for trigger words and phrases as opposed to attempting intellectual discussion it is that.

You are making different claims with each new sentence. You keep throwing qualitative statements around and I am holding you accountable for making them.

The entire point here is to get you to demonstrate the coherence of asking me to explain why a moral standard is good. It is not a coherent question. I am asking you to do the exact same thing that you are asking me, to explain why your moral standard (God) is good without referring back to it. You can't. The simple fact that you can't demonstrates the incoherence of your question. That's the point.

I already did in the last post to you and you totally ignored what was said which only proves to my thinking that it is you who has the incoherent worldview, incapable of making sense of itself without its special pleading that it is so because you or others like it to be so, not because it is good.

So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it outside of God so you make all kinds of innuendos about my questions being incoherent.

Peter

But God is their answer to everything. The bible doesn't. even meet the minimum requirement to be taught in school. It cannot be applied to science, math, history, etc. etc. it contains the word of God which has to be accepted on faith. But it does not contain the wisdom of God because then there would be no need for faith. The benefits would be obvious and applicable. The reason there is so much incoherency surrounding the Bible is because. Jesus was incoherent and expects no less from his followers.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 4:36:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 3:43:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it

No, I have no adequate answer for it because it is incoherent. I have explained why it is incoherent several times and gave you every opportunity to prove my point wrong. You won't even bother. I'm done with this pointless discussion. Debate me on the this. At least then someone will read what I write.

I'm reading it and your doing an awesome job. I'd vote for you.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 4:46:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 4:36:44 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:43:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it

No, I have no adequate answer for it because it is incoherent. I have explained why it is incoherent several times and gave you every opportunity to prove my point wrong. You won't even bother. I'm done with this pointless discussion. Debate me on the this. At least then someone will read what I write.

I'm reading it and your doing an awesome job. I'd vote for you.
If you find him as incoherent as all the other Christians, why are you attacking him?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 4:56:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 4:46:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/3/2015 4:36:44 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:43:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it

No, I have no adequate answer for it because it is incoherent. I have explained why it is incoherent several times and gave you every opportunity to prove my point wrong. You won't even bother. I'm done with this pointless discussion. Debate me on the this. At least then someone will read what I write.

I'm reading it and your doing an awesome job. I'd vote for you.
If you find him as incoherent as all the other Christians, why are you attacking him?

Who am I attacking? I think Double_R is making a great argument here. I don't find all Christians incoherent. This is a debate site, not only is he presenting a great argument, he's making a convincing one as well. Keep the emotion out of it. I have attacked no one.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 4:59:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 4:36:44 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/3/2015 3:43:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it

No, I have no adequate answer for it because it is incoherent. I have explained why it is incoherent several times and gave you every opportunity to prove my point wrong. You won't even bother. I'm done with this pointless discussion. Debate me on the this. At least then someone will read what I write.

I'm reading it and your doing an awesome job. I'd vote for you.

Gee thanks! Nice to know someone was paying attention.

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