Jump to content


Photo

Things That Don't Exist?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2016 - 11:10 AM

Mike Said:
 

Well said Mike. And we should remember what a powerful emotion hate is. Like you Mike, I don't want hatred and bitterness in my system. Jesus said if we hate we are in danger of the commandment, "do not murder".

Right! I remember how our beloed brother Stephen, when disbievers were stonning him, asked the Lord not to lay it not their charge! He realized that given the deception they that Satan had deceived his attackers into believing, thinking an doing what they did. Because of the decption, I try to get us all to think about our thinking so we can become aware of crooked thinking. You do the same.

An atheist can't magically tell someone they have hate because only the person with hate can know they are feeling that emotion.

Exactly, Bro. How many times have I tried to teach this fact to my clients! Even as we try to do it here and now.
No one can feel hate unless they trigger it in their mind. I personally, because of built in references that God put into our sofftware, don't like feeling the emotion hate. Since I have the ability not to trigger it by not thinking its trigger thoughts, I don't trigger that emotion.

The only way to know hate is if there is a clearly overt display of hatred such as calling people harsh and mean-spirited, prejudiced names, etc, and trying to stop them from living freely.

The ahte emotion is antecedant to hateful behavior. 100% right on! Exactly!
It's TEB. We think, emote and then behave. Cognition mediates at all levels of the process. We have the ability to think about our theinking, theink about the resulatan emotion and think about if we what e want to do and if indeed we want to act on the emotion and after the fact decide if we ere right to behave the way we chose to behave. We have all this built in contngncy--safeguards to monitor at all levels. We are without excuse! I know to much to try and get away with not thinking about my thinking.

As you know we have no hatred in our babarized systems.newbaba2.jpg :D I find it amusing to be accused of hatred, because obviously I know that I don't hate, the same way an innocent man in prison knows he is innocent of a crime people accuse him of committing.

I remeber when you made the comment before that you couldn't prove to another that you were inocent of a crime. But you knew you were innocent. We are aware of ourselves and that is our greatest gift to ourselves. We are aware that we control our thinking, emoting and behaving--not the environment or others words or deeds. Jesus set us that example when He said from the cross, "Father forgve them for they know not what the do."

I am not worried if they continue to accuse me because Jesus said, "blessed are you" when they say false things about you. Words have no power to hurt us or make us something we're not.

Couldn't have said it better. As our beloved Lord said, "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!"

We bless Fjuri and Goku, and re-invite them to friendship. Prediction: hostility from Fjuri, silence from Goku. Lol!

I noticed that too. That's their pattern alright. LOL

Maybe someday our efforts will yield fruit and the narble will hit the hole. As the poet said, they will turn the corner and run into themselves. Maybe finally they will admit that they create most not all of their issues in their own ninds. Then they will create us into their friends. I am lookig forward to that! In the mean time I havee your friendship and you have mine and the rest of our converted brothers and sisters. 7 billion more to go! LOL

(surely they must ask themselves why they can't friendify us - isn't that a sign of prejudice? If a G*y person joined EFF, me and Mike would friendify them straight away. It doesn't matter to me if Bob's man-pipe gets lodged inside Pete's lust shaft, causing satan's grapes to grow, and I would be happy to recommend a haemorrhoid cream to exorcise those grapes, and even pay for it if they were desperate.) :rotfl3: Just don't ask me to tread grapes, I don't engage in strange fetish behaviours. :rotfl3:

I would guess they are to busy collectig inustces to make themselve upset and falsely blame it on others.
LOL:)



#22 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 12:34 PM

 

 

Mike: Maybe someday our efforts will yield fruit and the narble will hit the hole. As the poet said, they will turn the corner and run into themselves. Maybe finally they will admit that they create most not all of their issues in their own ninds. Then they will create us into their friends. I am lookig forward to that! In the mean time I havee your friendship and you have mine and the rest of our converted brothers and sisters. 7 billion more to go! LOL

 

Lol. You are very optimistic, I suspect Fjuri would rather turn me into some kind of glue than be a friend with the "enemy" of evo. ;)

 

I notice how silent the duo are, I guess we have defused their word-bombs by not neurotically agreeing to them, or justifying ourselves to them.

 

I think that's the key Mike;

 

1. Don't accept the false words they say.

2. Don't over-exert yourself to defend your name, because this gives those words power and it justifies their self-deception that they are superior, and we must answer to their moral code.

 

As I have shown, relative moral codes are actually formulated according to the person's desires. Can you imagine how absurd it would be if the moors murderer joined this forum and asked me to justify something I had said? 

 

"And do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good."

 

There is nothing more effective than asking our opponents to be our friends Mike. That makes them scarper so fast that they practically get a hernia in a hurry to leave the EFF building. LOL! (what, be friends with them! Hell no, not if you paid me to do it!) 

 

;)

 

Remember in the war, when on Christmas day there was a truce, and germans and the allies had a Christmas dinner together? 

 

I repent in dust and ashes Fjuri, for the hate you created and I did not feel.  :rotfl3: 



#23 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:37 PM

There is physical harm caused by the G*y act because in case you don't know very obvious things, a flesh pipe was not designed to penetrate a man-tunnel. If you believe it was, please now provide the anatomical evidence to support your claim.

 
Also, think how silly it is to argue that any harm from the G*y lifestyle came from medical ignorance. If that is true, and that was the cause of the harm, then what about the harm the G*y act caused BEFORE medical science existed? Can you answer this question directly please and not avoid it? Here is the question; if a lack of medical educations causes the damage caused by G*y s@x then what caused the damage caused by G*y s@x before medical science existed? ?(moreover me and Mike would provide G*y people with any medical help, and they are free to access that help, so we don't accept guilt-by-association.)
 
Your argument is that murder isn't the cause of murder for stabbing-victims, but rather the cause of their murder was their lack of education that would teach them to wear a protective shield
 
It's a classic error which I see in court a lot, where people CONFLATE the lack of a preventive measure, with cause.
 
Example: "had you worn a seat belt you wouldn't have been harmed, so Bob was not in the wrong to run a red light and smash into your car".
 
Here you commit a classic error, so you're you're dardly in any position to tell us our thinking is wrong for accepting the Lord's word, the bible when your thinking is this clouded.

 

Sodomy is not restricted to G*y couples; plenty of straight couples like to switch around the holes they use. I thought you were referring to HIV, which is usually what people mean when they say it is harmful.

 

As for putting stuff up your butt, yeah I can agree you shouldn't do that too often (I have heard stories from my G*y friends that people who do it too much have to wear diapers in their later years). In moderation, and done properly with care, the risks are minimal. Even too much normal intercourse in a short period of time can leave the women with urinary track infections. Every activity carries its risks.

 

The go-to question people ask preachers that preach against sodomy is this: Why did God put nerves up the butt that are stimulated during sodomy and can lead to intense orgasms?

 

What is the, "Christian paradigm"? What you see as the, "Christian paradigm" I see as the genetic fallacy. We only have one genuine Christian source, the bible. It says nothing h*m*ph*bic, which is defined as prejudice and hatred towards people and we are commanded not to cast the stone by Christ, a we are Christians, not O.T. Jewish. (gentiles)

 

The bible is taken as a whole by us and says, "God is love" and there is, "no unrighteousness in Him". We can't just look at the statement about the G*y act but we have to look at all of the scriptures together as a whole, and see what the message is. The fruit of the spirit doesn't allow us to be prejudiced nor does Christ's commands. You have given a morally relative opinion that the bible is false. I can find others that would disagree, why are they wrong and you right, if it is all a matter of relativity? (what, did you think I would forget again?) LOL!

 

Like Mike says, you are using the group thing to imply "us" and "them", You say, "theist" as though to imply homophobia comes from theism, and us creationists, and you the, "we" are innocent.

 

Lol!

 

In the most strict sense the Christian paradigm is the doctrine of Christianity. The Bible most certainly says h*m*ph*bic things. In the OT they say to kill g*ys solely because they are G*y; if that is not homophobia please tell me what would count as homophobia? In the NT it explicitly states that G*y people will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven just the same as thieves and murderers.

 

Yes God is love, except when he tells people to kill G*y people because they are G*y, or is that an expression of God's love too? You can't hide behind the new covenant on this one; God does not change, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, and God has commanded in the past that G*y people need to die.

 

I never said my morality was correct; my argument is that the Bible's morality is clearly the culmination of ancient human thought and not that of some transcendent entity.

 

I never said theism is the root cause of homophobia. I said, twice (once in PM with you and once in this thread), that the general public has h*m*ph*bic tendencies that are exacerbated by theism.

 

Let's assume that is true for a moment. What then would make their morality, "wrong" and your morality, "right" if all morality is relative and there isn't some objective "right and wrong" that exists? :acigar:

 

Think about it, here in this post I had to show how cloudy your judgement was by the mistakes you made, yet you imply my judgement is wrong in accepting the bible

 

So if you were trying to say, "I think you idiots believe in a false book", then sorry to say this but this post demonstrates that I'm, "LAUGHING at the superior intellect."

 

At least TRY and understand Mike's first post of the thread.

 

I never said my morality is "right" in some ultimate, cosmic, objective way. The justification for my saying that h*m*s*xuality is not immoral is that it doesn't harm or effect anyone not involved.

 

Your points are not as good as you believe them to be.



#24 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:54 PM

Unless Goku answers my questions instead of re-ranting, I suggest the readers dismiss his posts. Please Jury, dismiss his statements, because if he can't answer my questions and can only avoid them and instead provide a new rhetoric that EVADES them, then the most pertinent question the jury must ask is this; "why can't Goku answer the questions?" "Why can he only formulate new rhetoric instead of answering the questions put to him, and evade them?"

 

Question: if all views of morality are relative, why is the biblical relative morality, wrong, and Goku's morality, "right" given under that circumstance, there can't be a relative group which is right and another that is wrong, for they would all be opinion-based?

 

I've talked about it before; what constitutes moral or immoral behavior depends on the principles said individual or school of thought holds as important.

 

I never said my morality is the ultimately correct view. In essence I am saying h*m*s*xuality is not immoral because it doesn't harm people, and when I ask you to justify your calling it immoral I get nothing but an argument from authority. To that end my point, besides that it is an argument from authority and what that logically entails, is that what you perceive as this ultimate authority is really the relative morality of an ancient sect of people without any influence from some transcendent entity.

 

Question: Why does goku self-righteoussly, always commit begging-the-question by assuming that his morality is correct and we must answer to it, and why does Fjuri pretend we must answer to his morality as though they are God and we are their subjects? Indeed, why do all atheists act this way and argue-from-outrage? Example: "you are a disgrace, all of the oppression and hate towards G*y people you Christians have caused! I am furious that you have the gaul to even talk to me!"

 

And you never assume your morality is correct and that I must answer to it? At least my reasoning doesn't hinge on arguments from authority.



#25 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 July 2016 - 06:52 PM

I've talked about it before; what constitutes moral or immoral behavior depends on the principles said individual or school of thought holds as important.

 

I never said my morality is the ultimately correct view. In essence I am saying h*m*s*xuality is not immoral because it doesn't harm people, and when I ask you to justify your calling it immoral I get nothing but an argument from authority. To that end my point, besides that it is an argument from authority and what that logically entails, is that what you perceive as this ultimate authority is really the relative morality of an ancient sect of people without any influence from some transcendent entity.

 

 

And you never assume your morality is correct and that I must answer to it? At least my reasoning doesn't hinge on arguments from authority.

Just a few thoughts. 

- There are several schools of thought concerning ethics that can be subdivided into several classes. e.g.: Deontological Ethics (duty based), Utilitarian Ethics (Greatest pleasure, utility from action ), Virtue Ethics (how would a person of good character act), rights ethics (propose rights, ask if someone's rights are violated).

- If a school of thoughts principles are correct, wouldn't that depend on whether that schools of thoughts idea is true or not?

- Your statement that h*m*s*xuality doesn't harm people, how do you know that this is true?

- You complain that your're opponent's view hinges on argument from authority. I got to tell you, yours does as well. Let me briefly explain:

-- I assess your ethics briefly: If it doesn't "harm people", it's OK and moral to do. I'd assign that into the Utilitarian Category combined with the rights ethics. The utilitarians are more meta-ethical and may form a basis for declaring rights. 

-- Your "It doesn't harm, so it's OK" is the axiomatic principle of your ethics. It's an authoritative statement, without defined authority, but it nevertheless is.
-- Hence, you are arguing from authority as well!

 

But is that true that "h*m*s*xuality doesn't harm people"? How do you know that, what's the evidence for that? I think there is quite some indicators that point the other way. Now you can say:"But as long as it's consensual between grown-ups, it should be allowed!". Sounds great at first sight, but what if there are unethical/immoral things that take place with consensus between people. I mean that would be possible for sure. Like lying to each other, would that also be "no harm" as long as it's consensual meaning tolerated, by the side that is lied to?!


  • mike the wiz likes this

#26 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2016 - 08:34 PM


Yes God is love, except when he tells people to kill G*y people because they are G*y, or is that an expression of God's love too? You can't hide behind the new covenant on this one; God does not change, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, and God has commanded in the past that G*y people need to die.

There you go again. There is nothing any of us can do about the past. My suggestion is that you forgive (accept reality). God can do anything he wants. He has the abilit'y to reason and does chage his mind. If you read the bible you wouldn't create such ignorant answers. These are NT times.


I never said my morality was correct; my argument is that the Bible's morality is clearly the culmination of ancient human thought and not that of some transcendent entity.

Whatever but, it still boils down to two choices. Love or hate, good or evil. "How long halt ye between two opinions?"


I never said theism is the root cause of homophobia. I said, twice (once in PM with you and once in this thread), that the general public has h*m*ph*bic tendencies that are exacerbated by theism.

Individual people and their beliefs are the cause of homophobia not non existent entities.

Evo did it? Right? It supposedly did everything. Right?

I never said my morality is "right" in some ultimate, cosmic, objective way. The justification for my saying that h*m*s*xuality is not immoral is that it doesn't harm or effect anyone not involved.

I've talked about it before; what constitutes moral or immoral behavior depends on the principles said individual or school of thought holds as important.

I would like you to less vague and accept the morality that you create.

I never said my morality is the ultimately correct view. In essence I am saying h*m*s*xuality is not immoral because it doesn't harm people, and when I ask you to justify your calling it immoral I get nothing but an argument from authority. To that end my point, besides that it is an argument from authority and what that logically entails, is that what you perceive as this ultimate authority is really the relative morality of an ancient sect of people without any influence from some transcendent entity.

At leas according to your created story. But in the end it comes down to what you do because you are a free moral agent. You seem to be arguing that point pretty forcefully from reading the above prose.

Question: Why does goku self-righteoussly, always commit begging-the-question by assuming Example: "you are a disgrace, all of the oppression and hate towards G*y people you Christians have caused! I am furious that you have the gaul to even talk to me!"

Once again we are a group not indviduals. I have never presecuted G*y people. So who is he talking to.

And you never assume your mora
lity is correct and that I must answer to it? At least my reasoning doesn't hinge on arguments from authority.

Christias are told not to persecute anyonne! the scripture says vengence is mine sayeth the lord. So if anyone is persecuted it's not on God rquest. We all act in a unilateral manner.
Oh but it does depennd on your arguments and you are the authority in your arguments.

#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 July 2016 - 03:01 AM

 

Goku: In the most strict sense the Christian paradigm is the doctrine of Christianity. The Bible most certainly says h*m*ph*bic things. In the OT they say to kill g*ys solely because they are G*y; if that is not homophobia please tell me what would count as homophobia? In the NT it explicitly states that G*y people will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven just the same as thieves and murderers.

 

Yes God is love, except when he tells people to kill G*y people because they are G*y, or is that an expression of God's love too?

 

Hang on a minute...you're getting way ahead here, I haven't read the scriptures you are talking about(though I can guess which ones), nor do I necessarily agree with your interpretation which is cynical.

 

From our perspective, God kills people a lot in the bible. Because God created all life, He has the moral right to take it away. Since God is omniscient, and is love, it would be pretty obtuse to infer the non-sequitur that any action He commands in the bible, means He is evil.

 

That is the ad-nauseam argument I get a lot from you, you always basically argue this; "the bible says X this time, therefore God is not moral", but not only do we not agree, we also would not have a cynical interpretation like you.

 

For example, when the bible says, "h*m*sexuals" will not inherit the kingdom, it can't possibly mean that if you are born G*y that you will go straight to hell. That would be a very silly argument. It is pretty obvious that the definition of H*mos*xual back then, refers to the act. All through the bible we are shown laws to do and not do certain things, but never does it suggest that simply being born a certain way is a sin.

 

So I am not cynical about what God means. God wouldn't simply have people killed, but rather the OT says that a man shouldn't sleep with a man, nor a woman with a woman, and if they do, there is a punishment God has decided. My reaction to that is, that I don't know better than God, like you presume to.

 

I would also say that apart from sodomy, there is a whole lot of negative effects such as disease and emotional hurts, and spiritual hurts. We are told that when flesh joins they become one, which implies there is a connection between a man and wife, so then we also have to consider God's intentions. From God's perspective, He is saying that He has not designed men to be with men that they should become one flesh.

 

So your arguments basically depend on assuming the bible is false. But we're not going to agree with you on that. Just fishing for things in the bible then saying, "ergo the bible is false" is one of those errors the link I quoted, gave. (non-sequiturs).

 

I would agree that from our perspective (limited human, relative reasonings/opinions) it does seem very harsh some of the things God commanded, and I agree that from a surface-reading of the text, it does seem (from that perspective) almost as though God is commanding people to do immoral things from time to time. But really then you have to decide, do you value magisterial reason MORE than ministerial reason? That is to say - do we make a decision that our thinking, in our limited capacity, IS GOD. (pride)

 

For me that is unthinkable. It is better to, "trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding". - Proverbs. (there is an obvious reason why we should not lean on our human reason, if God knows better).

 

A good example of this is when Lazarus dies and Jesus lets him, or when Jesus tells Peter to let down his nets for a fish-catch. In both examples it would seem very patently obvious to our human-reason, that Jesus does not care about Lazarus and lets him die, and that Jesus does not know what He is doing when He suggests catching fish in the day time, as He has no knowledge of fishing and Peter is an expert.

 

Peter decides to trust Jesus. First Peter makes a statement about human reason (magisterial) THEN he basically says, "but I choose to believe you are who you are, and know better". Peter makes a choice of faith by saying something like this; "Lord we have caught not fish all night, nevertheless I will do as you have commanded." (paraphrase)

 

 

 

Mike: Oh but it does depennd on your arguments and you are the authority in your arguments. 

 

Exactly, Goku says his morals aren't the correct one, then give us his moral opinions about the bible, as though there is some objective reality that makes his opinions somehow correct, and not Bob the agnostic, who isn't cynical about the bible. If Goku says it is wrong, it is, and we must just trust in the Goku-god.

:P



#28 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 July 2016 - 03:51 AM

Fjuri and Goku,

Your biblical equivalent is Job.
You guys seem so proud of yourself for not bashing g*ys but, you have no problem bashng God and Christians. Aren't Chrstians humans? Aren't we hmans like you? Or do you belong to the master race and Mike the wiz and me are miscreants--rejectees from the fit gene pool?

So, what's the dfferennce between bashing g*ys and Mike and me (as well as other Christians)?
Bashing is bashing!

How ironic that you accuse two Chrtians of hating someone we don't hate--and bashing people we have never bashed?

We make every effort to explain ourselves to you including our desire to be your friend but, all you do is attack us and claim we hate people we don't and do things we say we have don't do (bashig another human being). Nevertheless, like the unjust judge mentioned in the bible, you declare us guilty of wrong doing anyway!

When we say we haven't done any bashing, you go into your neurotic agreement "group" mode. One person n the group dd something    wrong everyone is guilty. this is foolishness. You infer we are guilty because eeome one else is guilty. My mom used to have an expression she used that seems to fit your behavior perfectly "The cuckoo calls himself by his own name."

I hope you have one of those moments called an Aha moment and you see just how selfrigteous you have created yourself into being! No, bro you are not the pillar of virtue you seem to think you are! You bash christians1

I dont, say this stuff with hostility but because I want you to quit perecuting people. :)



#29 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 July 2016 - 06:00 PM

Just a few thoughts. 

- There are several schools of thought concerning ethics that can be subdivided into several classes. e.g.: Deontological Ethics (duty based), Utilitarian Ethics (Greatest pleasure, utility from action ), Virtue Ethics (how would a person of good character act), rights ethics (propose rights, ask if someone's rights are violated).

- If a school of thoughts principles are correct, wouldn't that depend on whether that schools of thoughts idea is true or not?

- Your statement that h*m*s*xuality doesn't harm people, how do you know that this is true?

- You complain that your're opponent's view hinges on argument from authority. I got to tell you, yours does as well. Let me briefly explain:

-- I assess your ethics briefly: If it doesn't "harm people", it's OK and moral to do. I'd assign that into the Utilitarian Category combined with the rights ethics. The utilitarians are more meta-ethical and may form a basis for declaring rights. 

-- Your "It doesn't harm, so it's OK" is the axiomatic principle of your ethics. It's an authoritative statement, without defined authority, but it nevertheless is.
-- Hence, you are arguing from authority as well!

 

But is that true that "h*m*s*xuality doesn't harm people"? How do you know that, what's the evidence for that? I think there is quite some indicators that point the other way. Now you can say:"But as long as it's consensual between grown-ups, it should be allowed!". Sounds great at first sight, but what if there are unethical/immoral things that take place with consensus between people. I mean that would be possible for sure. Like lying to each other, would that also be "no harm" as long as it's consensual meaning tolerated, by the side that is lied to?!

 

The problem with denoting an ethical system as "true" is that morality itself appears to be fundamentally abstract rather than something we can externally measure. Once we have an ethical system in place we can look at the world externally, and based on the underlying principles of said ethics determine what is and is not appropriate in a 100% objective way (theoretically), but those underlying principles cannot be externally justified in any case that I know of without at least one axiom which cannot be externally justified.
 

I agree with your assessment that a good summary of my position on this topic is that because h*m*s*xuality doesn't cause harm it is morally permissible.

 

I think that can be justified under the idea that we are each autonomous individuals that are conscious and feel pleasure/pain. While everyone has different preferences of what they desire, recognizing that we all have the same basic desire that is colored in different ways, empathy (and to a lesser degree narcissism) will lead us to a place where we give ethical rights to others just as we would give ethical rights to ourselves (you reach this with narcissism when you recognize that if you can harm others then others can harm you). In balancing the rights of others during interaction it appears, to put it simply, the optimal and objective way is to allow people to do as they please so long as their actions do not harm others.

 

It is authoritative in the sense that it relies on axioms, but it is not an argument from authority, at least not in the same sense as saying Bob said it therefore it is so. If it is an argument from authority, is there anything that is not an argument from authority? If not, wouldn't your delineation of what is and isn't authoritative become completely useless?

 

I know h*m*s*xuality doesn't harm people due to induction, so it can be overturned with evidence. I won't repeat the stuff I said in other posts in this post, but I don't find the examples presented to me as being valid examples of harm due to h*m*s*xuality. Not just what I've seen on EFF recently but over the years as well.

 

If someone wants to engage in harmful behavior, and it doesn't harm anyone else, then I am of the mind that it is their choice to make. Just as a reference point so you know where I am coming from, I believe all drugs should be legalized. Obviously drugs are harmful, but if someone is of age, educated about the risks, and is more or less mentally competent enough to make a decision, then ultimately I say it is their choice. Let me ask you this, should we allow the usage of tobacco and alcohol since it is harmful? Boxing is a sport that does serious harm to the players, but if two people consent to have a match are you saying we should forgo their consent and stop the match from happening?



#30 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 July 2016 - 06:12 PM

So, what's the dfferennce between bashing g*ys and Mike and me (as well as other Christians)?
Bashing is bashing!

 

What's the difference between Nazis killing Jews and the Allied forces killing Nazis? Killing is killing! Get off your high horse and let us Nazis kill the Jews.

 

Not saying y'all are Nazis; the Nazis are used for illustrative purposes to drive home the point. We are 'bashing' y'all because y'all are, without provocation, bashing innocent people.



#31 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 July 2016 - 09:25 PM

Hang on a minute...you're getting way ahead here, I haven't read the scriptures you are talking about(though I can guess which ones), nor do I necessarily agree with your interpretation which is cynical.

 

From our perspective, God kills people a lot in the bible. Because God created all life, He has the moral right to take it away. Since God is omniscient, and is love, it would be pretty obtuse to infer the non-sequitur that any action He commands in the bible, means He is evil.

 

That is the ad-nauseam argument I get a lot from you, you always basically argue this; "the bible says X this time, therefore God is not moral", but not only do we not agree, we also would not have a cynical interpretation like you.

 

For example, when the bible says, "h*m*sexuals" will not inherit the kingdom, it can't possibly mean that if you are born G*y that you will go straight to hell. That would be a very silly argument. It is pretty obvious that the definition of H*mos*xual back then, refers to the act. All through the bible we are shown laws to do and not do certain things, but never does it suggest that simply being born a certain way is a sin.

 

So I am not cynical about what God means. God wouldn't simply have people killed, but rather the OT says that a man shouldn't sleep with a man, nor a woman with a woman, and if they do, there is a punishment God has decided. My reaction to that is, that I don't know better than God, like you presume to.

 

Leviticus 20:13 clearly states that the punishment for two men lying together is death. How is that "gentle" and "loving"? I don't presuppose God as some immoral figure; he demonstrates that that is his character time and time again through his actions and edicts. You keep saying "look at the fruit". Well, I am looking at the fruit of God's character and I do not see this gentle, loving, benevolent entity.

 

The NT verses about the kingdom don't have to mean that being born G*y automatically means you are Hell-bound in order for it to be an immoral creed. From my perspective two men getting it on is no where close to any kind of moral ground to send them to a place like Hell (or punish them in any way). As far as I can tell we largely agree on what the Bible means regarding this topic, however you interpret it as moral and I do not.

 

My reaction is, these are not the actions/laws of some transcendent entity with superior moral reasoning, like you presume.

 

I would also say that apart from sodomy, there is a whole lot of negative effects such as disease and emotional hurts, and spiritual hurts. We are told that when flesh joins they become one, which implies there is a connection between a man and wife, so then we also have to consider God's intentions. From God's perspective, He is saying that He has not designed men to be with men that they should become one flesh.

 

What diseases and emotional hurts are at risk among G*y couples that are not present in straight couples? There are literally thousands, if not millions, of G*y couples that are disease free, emotionally and spiritually healthy, and otherwise living completely normal and healthy lives.

 

So your arguments basically depend on assuming the bible is false. But we're not going to agree with you on that. Just fishing for things in the bible then saying, "ergo the bible is false" is one of those errors the link I quoted, gave. (non-sequiturs).

 

Actually my assumption is that the Bible is not presupposed as truth, as you do. Any moral system that cannot or will not be subject to our best efforts to examine it is not worth accepting. I refuse to accept that the same God that has given me this intellect has intended me to forgo its usage.

 

I would agree that from our perspective (limited human, relative reasonings/opinions) it does seem very harsh some of the things God commanded, and I agree that from a surface-reading of the text, it does seem (from that perspective) almost as though God is commanding people to do immoral things from time to time. But really then you have to decide, do you value magisterial reason MORE than ministerial reason? That is to say - do we make a decision that our thinking, in our limited capacity, IS GOD. (pride)

 

For me that is unthinkable. It is better to, "trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding". - Proverbs. (there is an obvious reason why we should not lean on our human reason, if God knows better).

 

A good example of this is when Lazarus dies and Jesus lets him, or when Jesus tells Peter to let down his nets for a fish-catch. In both examples it would seem very patently obvious to our human-reason, that Jesus does not care about Lazarus and lets him die, and that Jesus does not know what He is doing when He suggests catching fish in the day time, as He has no knowledge of fishing and Peter is an expert.

 

Peter decides to trust Jesus. First Peter makes a statement about human reason (magisterial) THEN he basically says, "but I choose to believe you are who you are, and know better". Peter makes a choice of faith by saying something like this; "Lord we have caught not fish all night, nevertheless I will do as you have commanded." (paraphrase)

 

Until you decide that the Bible is no longer immune to objective analysis you will never truly speak to anyone that has not already presupposed the Bible as the inerrant truth unquestioningly.

 

I understand that oftentimes you have to lean on the understanding of others, but even when we do so we try to take steps to ensure that we are listening to the right people, and sometimes even educate ourselves in the basics so we won't be duped by obvious falsehoods. I don't want to turn this into a list of everything that is morally questionable in the Bible or anything, but suffice to say I think there is enough questionable material in the Bible that we shouldn't simply accept everything in it as this great moral guide under the pretense that the author knows better because the author claims to be God.

 

Put simply you would never accept such an answer you gave me if it came from any other religion. Which is better, to trust in your own understanding or the understanding of Allah? Don't fall for your fallacious human reasoning that has brought you to a warped and corrupted text of the one true God. Repent of your pride and listen to what Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Don't lean on your own understanding, lean on the understanding of Allah, the God of love, and submit yourself to the teachings of Islam.

 

If that type of language doesn't make you think "I was wrong not to trust Allah", why do you think it will work when you do it for Yahweh?



#32 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 July 2016 - 10:58 PM

Goku said:

What's the difference between Nazis killing Jews and the Allied forces killing Nazis? Killing is killing! Get off that gaas ayour high horse and let us Nazis kill the Jews.

I agree! Killing is killing. That's why I applad ending survial of the fittest. It was you that argued that g*ys do no harm. What harm have Mike or I done?

Not saying y'all are Nazis; the Nazis are used for illustrative purposes to drive home the point. We are 'bashing' y'all because y'all are stateem, without provocation, bashing innocent people.

Us vs them? We are not all members of the human race? That's so survival of the fittest.

"Not saying y'all are Nazis;" is such a classic nonsnese statement. "I am not saying what I am saying."

What a drama queen. I have never pschologically bashed any g*ys. As a thrapist I have done therapy on numerus g*ys. Mos I have treated for "symptom stress" and suicide pevention. If I were a basher why would I try to talk them out of killing themselve? That doesen't make sense.

This is your unbridalled hate for God and christianity which you seem to not want to face. Get over it.

You claim we are doing something we are not doing. If I as a Chritiians belonged to a "movement" that declared we were behind extermintig g*ys it wold be front page news. Bad analogy.

Moreover, I teach our thoughts cause our emotions. g*ys could benefit froma an extra dose of what I teach. So while our discourse is amusing and an interesting view in to your bigoted racist mental life, I don't consider your verbage actual bashing as there is no personal focus. It does, however, show how vengeful and hateful you can be--defnitely not Christian values. So defaco I guess de-facto you have chosen hate.



#33 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 July 2016 - 03:57 AM

 

 

Goku: Put simply you would never accept such an answer you gave me if it came from any other religion. Which is better, to trust in your own understanding or the understanding of Allah? Don't fall for your fallacious human reasoning that has brought you to a warped and corrupted text of the one true God. Repent of your pride and listen to what Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Don't lean on your own understanding, lean on the understanding of Allah, the God of love, and submit yourself to the teachings of Islam.

 

But Allah doesn't say, "trust in Allah with all your understanding, don't lean on your own understanding." Nor is there any of the wisdom of Christ in the Quran. I gave examples of Christ's wisdom with the fish and Lazarus, showing that I am not just saying "repent of your pride trust in Christ", but rather those two stories are a demonstration that God knew better.

 

Think about it, had God not revealed the end of those stories, your human reason would have had you conclude that Jesus was immoral for letting Lazarus die and Jesus made a mistake thinking fish could be caught in the day. If you want to use the Quran, you have to give equal examples if you are claiming that book of jihad-hate is the same as the bible.

 

We have had this discussion before Goku. Just because you state that all religions are equal as though they all have the same chance of being true, doesn't mean we buy your argument.

 

The bible is a unique book. As I have told you before, we have to use logic in order to provide a set of conditionals;

 

"If God wants to reveal himself to mankind and He does exist THEN would He want to communicate the best and true message clearly, without any competors?" The reasonable answer is, "yes"

 

Given that reasonable assumption, would it make any sense that the God Who created all of the creatures on earth, Who would have to have immensely unlimited wisdom, to speak a message which is arbitrary and weak, and doesn't explain the facts of the world?

 

It's a shame you're not willing to think this through Goku, because I do believe you could see the argument is strong, if you tried.

 

Let's take it step by step then;

 

1. We assume God exists and is good. (Technically He doesn't have to be, but most people would agree that if God exists He would be good, and I think it's a fair assumption given it wouldn't be worth believing or trusting Him or wasting your time following Him if He wasn't.)

2. Evil and suffering and disease exists.

3. God is omniscient and wants to communicate to mankind.

 

Given these three assumptions, we must ask the logical question; Does it make sense if these assumptions are definitely true, that God would choose to speak through a holy book or religion, that does not explain why there is evil and suffering or disease, and does not provide any answer as to why the world is not a paradise if God made the world?

 

When we consider how unique the bible is, we tend to forget it isn't one book but many, written over centuries. The bible explains that this world was made perfect, sin came in, Christ is the solution to that sin and that God will make a new heaven and earth. The bible is also the clear forerunner, in all of the religions.

 

This leads to a second reasonable question;

 

If God does want to communicate to mankind, would it make sense for Him to speak through a minority-religion, or to speak through other holy books such as the Quran, which are basically copied from the bible?

 

For example the Quran refers to the bible. Think how confused God would have to be, to let a false bible be written and then tell us to refer to that bible as some sort of history, but ignore what it says about Jesus Christ. what an absolutely confusing thing for a believer. God would have to be dumb, because nobody would have a clue which book was true.

 

What a convoluted, confused, and obtuse God that can provide no sound theology or no clear instructions for mankind, when He makes what would be a false book (the bible) look like the only shot at being the answer.

 

If God had allowed this, then basically His strategy would be ineffective and poor. Islam or the other religions, don't provide the answers for life but are vague, disjointed, shallow, arbitrary, and clearly invented, codswallop.

 

If we are to assume what you are saying Goku, then God is a person that confuses people, has no capable strategy, is incapable of clarity, and has misled the majority of people. He has also allowed the bible to give better answers to the problems of life, than any of the other holy books, he supposedly would have spoken through.

 

Sorry, but this is not a believable set of events. Everyone knows, rational people know, that the bible is the only shot.

 

That's my final comment to you because you have chosen to go in a circle again, saying how the bible is morally wrong from your own perspective, without any objective criteria. You are just repeating your arguments ad-nauseam. You did not answer the questions I posed to you. You say the bible is immoral, from your perspective, yet it might not from someone else's. What makes your perspective the correct one under moral relativism?

 

Under moral relativism you wouldn't be saying one type of morality is wrong, you would be arguing that all of them are equal, but that's not what you do, what you do is contradict your own beliefs, by pretending that the bible is objectively wrong while preaching there is no such thing as objective wrong. You can't have both ways. If there is only an atheist universe then there is no such thing as wrong, meaning you can only argue that the bible is just another set of morals which is not better or worse than any other set.

 

It's also clear you only really look at the bible using cherry-picking glasses, and assume there is no overall theme. You refer to a law for a small country and that law would have affected a few million people for a short period, but the new testament, which is the "law of the spirit of life", has been intended by God for dozens of billions of people. So then, when the atheists focus on the O.T, I find it laughable, the O.T is like the tip of an iceburg in God's will, it was a demonstration to us that TECHNICALLY He could be strictly just according to His incredibly holy standard of perfection, and not tolerate so much as one sin, which corrupts absolutely from His perfect standpoint. Instead He shows us that His desire to merciful is much greater, by dying on a cross and spreading a message of mercy that would basically be preached throughout the entirety of human history. The O.T has not spanned history and only pertained to Jewish people, for a limited time, a small country of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 



#34 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 July 2016 - 06:40 AM

But Allah doesn't say, "trust in Allah with all your understanding, don't lean on your own understanding." Nor is there any of the wisdom of Christ in the Quran. I gave examples of Christ's wisdom with the fish and Lazarus, showing that I am not just saying "repent of your pride trust in Christ", but rather those two stories are a demonstration that God knew better.

Actually it does...

It re-uses the bible, so everything that's in there is also in the Quran.

 

The bible is a unique book. As I have told you before, we have to use logic in order to provide a set of conditionals;

 

"If God wants to reveal himself to mankind and He does exist THEN would He want to communicate the best and true message clearly, without any competors?" The reasonable answer is, "yes"

 

Given that reasonable assumption, would it make any sense that the God Who created all of the creatures on earth, Who would have to have immensely unlimited wisdom, to speak a message which is arbitrary and weak, and doesn't explain the facts of the world?

Have you studied the Quran?

 

Let's take it step by step then;

 

1. We assume God exists and is good. (Technically He doesn't have to be, but most people would agree that if God exists He would be good, and I think it's a fair assumption given it wouldn't be worth believing or trusting Him or wasting your time following Him if He wasn't.)

2. Evil and suffering and disease exists.

3. God is omniscient and wants to communicate to mankind.

 

Given these three assumptions, we must ask the logical question; Does it make sense if these assumptions are definitely true, that God would choose to speak through a holy book or religion, that does not explain why there is evil and suffering or disease, and does not provide any answer as to why the world is not a paradise if God made the world?

 

When we consider how unique the bible is, we tend to forget it isn't one book but many, written over centuries. The bible explains that this world was made perfect, sin came in, Christ is the solution to that sin and that God will make a new heaven and earth. The bible is also the clear forerunner, in all of the religions.

 

This leads to a second reasonable question;

 

If God does want to communicate to mankind, would it make sense for Him to speak through a minority-religion, or to speak through other holy books such as the Quran, which are basically copied from the bible?

Are you really arguing that the Bible is true (if we give the above assumptions) because there are more Christians then Jewish people?

And the Bible is true, because a Second edition is more valuable then a Third edition? (Yes, I'm counting the Torah)

 

Even when granting the assumptions above, it still an argument popularity (vs Torah) and personal incredulity (vs Quran).

 

For example the Quran refers to the bible. Think how confused God would have to be, to let a false bible be written and then tell us to refer to that bible as some sort of history, but ignore what it says about Jesus Christ. what an absolutely confusing thing for a believer. God would have to be dumb, because nobody would have a clue which book was true.

 

What a convoluted, confused, and obtuse God that can provide no sound theology or no clear instructions for mankind, when He makes what would be a false book (the bible) look like the only shot at being the answer.

Many people would argue that the Quran and Torah are pretty clear. And the bible refers to the Torah, so erm, think how confused God would have to be...

Also 33,000 different Christian denominations would also shed some light on how confusing your Bible really is. ;)

 

It's also clear you only really look at the bible using cherry-picking glasses, and assume there is no overall theme. You refer to a law for a small country and that law would have affected a few million people for a short period, but the new testament, which is the "law of the spirit of life", has been intended by God for dozens of billions of people. So then, when the atheists focus on the O.T, I find it laughable, the O.T is like the tip of an iceburg in God's will, it was a demonstration to us that TECHNICALLY He could be strictly just according to His incredibly holy standard of perfection, and not tolerate so much as one sin, which corrupts absolutely from His perfect standpoint. Instead He shows us that His desire to merciful is much greater, by dying on a cross and spreading a message of mercy that would basically be preached throughout the entirety of human history. The O.T has not spanned history and only pertained to Jewish people, for a limited time, a small country of people.

I'm speaking for me, I can't see in Goku's head of course, but since we were originally discussing the Bible's stance on G*y's it is clear that ignoring the references would be the cherry picking.



#35 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 July 2016 - 09:02 AM

 

Fjuri: Are you really arguing that the Bible is true (if we give the above assumptions) because there are more Christians then Jewish people?

And the Bible is true, because a Second edition is more valuable then a Third edition? (Yes, I'm counting the Torah)

 

Even when granting the assumptions above, it still an argument popularity (vs Torah) and personal incredulity (vs Quran).

 

No, I am not arguing the bible is true based on numbers. Argumentum ad populum is committed when because of a majority the belief is accepted as true.

 

(example: most people would argue that h*m*s*xuality is not wrong therefore it is not wrong.)

 

I am arguing that it would make no sense for God to allow the bible to exist if He is not the God of the bible and He wants to communicate with mankind effectively. The bible is a unique book that is unrivalled in it's historicity and content.

 

 

CMI: In actual fact, we have many first-century non-Christian historians and writers who confirm the life and execution of Jesus: Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and references in the Talmud and other Jewish writings. Encyclopædia Britannica sums up the force of the data:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

The gospels have also been supported by archaeology. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939), the archaeologist and professor from Oxford and Cambridge Universities, started investigating Luke’s gospel with the assumption that Luke was mistaken in many areas. But Ramsay discovered time and time again that Luke was absolutely precise about place names and the many varied titles of rulers. Ramsay concluded:

The Old Testament has been supported repeatedly by archaeology. The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical myth, but their enormous ancient capital, Hattusa, was discovered at modern Boghazköy. Archaeology has also vindicated the war of four kings vs five in Gen. 14. and Belshazzar’s kingship in Daniel.“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”12

 

Fjuri, given the above quote, one has to ask, "If the Lord is not God and it is the God of some other religion, like say Allah, then why did He shoot Himself in the foot by making the bible such a strong, historically accurate book with incredible manuscript authority?"

 

You have to remember those assumptions.

 

- We assume God wants to speak to man through a holy book and specific religious belief.

- We assume He wants to convey His message effectively.

- We assume God is the one who is so intelligent and wise, the one that made all life.

 

The very worst thing to do would be to allow the bible, then introduce the koran as a johnny-come-lately, and appeal to the authority of the bible yet disagree with lots of the bible also.

 

That would be a mess. The God Who created all of the mind-blowing lifeforms has astonishing omniscience, therefore we could conclude that God could not be the God of another religion, for if He was He made the worst possible mistake by allowing the bible to appear more genuine, be more historically accurate, than any other book, and He made His own religion a johnny-come-lately, plagiarisation of a false book?

 

Surely you have to agree, that as a tactician such methods would make God a very obtuse and ineffective God. Where is the powerful message of a minor religion? Fact is none of them have any deep and meaningful message, they all contain shallow teachings that a base-understanding would lead any rational person to simply say, "this is just made-up, superficial codswallop which doesn't answer life's important questions."

 

The bible does answer those questions whether you like it or not. Why would God allow the bible to be successful and have a full answer to life but make the other religions look superficial jokes in comparison?

 

Those actions would be the actions of someone with an IQ below 40, which means the extreme improbability of God being the God of a minor religion, must be observed.



#36 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 July 2016 - 12:13 AM

But Allah doesn't say, "trust in Allah with all your understanding, don't lean on your own understanding." Nor is there any of the wisdom of Christ in the Quran. I gave examples of Christ's wisdom with the fish and Lazarus, showing that I am not just saying "repent of your pride trust in Christ", but rather those two stories are a demonstration that God knew better.

 

Besides that Islam is the third installment of the Abrahamic trilogy so both Judaic and Christian scripture also pertain to Islam, a cursory google search of the Qur'an will reveal many passages that talk about putting your trust in Allah. I understand that Christianity is your team and so you will advocate for it, but your habit of asserting falsehoods about other religions forces me to conclude that either you are extremely ignorant about all other religions except your own, or you simply don't care if your assertions about other religions are true or false so long as you put Christianity in a good light.

 

Islam does not deny that Christ lived and performed miracles; Christ is considered a prophet of Allah, just not the messiah (recall that the Bible is considered to be corrupted in Islam). Why would you expect a book about Muhammad to feature the wisdom of Jesus? That doesn't make any sense.

 

Those two stories in the Bible are nice, but I think if you are honest you have to admit that you must accept that those stories happened on faith. Why couldn't I go pick out any miracle from any other holy text as evidence of its truth? IIRC there are Hindu stories about God raising people from the dead as well.

 

Think about it, had God not revealed the end of those stories, your human reason would have had you conclude that Jesus was immoral for letting Lazarus die and Jesus made a mistake thinking fish could be caught in the day. If you want to use the Quran, you have to give equal examples if you are claiming that book of jihad-hate is the same as the bible.

 

We have had this discussion before Goku. Just because you state that all religions are equal as though they all have the same chance of being true, doesn't mean we buy your argument.

 

I never said or argued that all religions are equal at any point here on EFF; funny how you expect all of us to see the nuance in your arguments yet you regularly fail to see ours.

 

The point of bringing up Islam, I could have chosen any religion, is that merely asserting that your religion is right, or using the miracles of a given holy text to justify belief (circular reasoning), only works if you presuppose the truth of that religion to begin with. You do not accept the assertions of the Qur'an or Islam unquestioningly, and similarly we do not accept the assertions of the Bible or Christianity unquestioningly.

 

The bible is a unique book. As I have told you before, we have to use logic in order to provide a set of conditionals;

 

"If God wants to reveal himself to mankind and He does exist THEN would He want to communicate the best and true message clearly, without any competors?" The reasonable answer is, "yes"

 

Given that reasonable assumption, would it make any sense that the God Who created all of the creatures on earth, Who would have to have immensely unlimited wisdom, to speak a message which is arbitrary and weak, and doesn't explain the facts of the world?

 

It's a shame you're not willing to think this through Goku, because I do believe you could see the argument is strong, if you tried.

 

Let's take it step by step then;

 

1. We assume God exists and is good. (Technically He doesn't have to be, but most people would agree that if God exists He would be good, and I think it's a fair assumption given it wouldn't be worth believing or trusting Him or wasting your time following Him if He wasn't.)

2. Evil and suffering and disease exists.

3. God is omniscient and wants to communicate to mankind.

 

Given these three assumptions, we must ask the logical question; Does it make sense if these assumptions are definitely true, that God would choose to speak through a holy book or religion, that does not explain why there is evil and suffering or disease, and does not provide any answer as to why the world is not a paradise if God made the world?

 

When we consider how unique the bible is, we tend to forget it isn't one book but many, written over centuries. The bible explains that this world was made perfect, sin came in, Christ is the solution to that sin and that God will make a new heaven and earth. The bible is also the clear forerunner, in all of the religions.

 

This leads to a second reasonable question;

 

If God does want to communicate to mankind, would it make sense for Him to speak through a minority-religion, or to speak through other holy books such as the Quran, which are basically copied from the bible?

 

For example the Quran refers to the bible. Think how confused God would have to be, to let a false bible be written and then tell us to refer to that bible as some sort of history, but ignore what it says about Jesus Christ. what an absolutely confusing thing for a believer. God would have to be dumb, because nobody would have a clue which book was true.

 

What a convoluted, confused, and obtuse God that can provide no sound theology or no clear instructions for mankind, when He makes what would be a false book (the bible) look like the only shot at being the answer.

 

If God had allowed this, then basically His strategy would be ineffective and poor. Islam or the other religions, don't provide the answers for life but are vague, disjointed, shallow, arbitrary, and clearly invented, codswallop.

 

If we are to assume what you are saying Goku, then God is a person that confuses people, has no capable strategy, is incapable of clarity, and has misled the majority of people. He has also allowed the bible to give better answers to the problems of life, than any of the other holy books, he supposedly would have spoken through.

 

Sorry, but this is not a believable set of events. Everyone knows, rational people know, that the bible is the only shot.

 

I do not think the Bible does a good job at explaining the facts of the world.

 

Question 1: I think most major religions give some explanation as to why there is suffering in the world; Buddhism's whole niche is explaining the root cause of suffering and how to get rid of it. Granted God isn't part of the equation, but in a sense that makes Buddhism's attempt all the more genuine. Hinduism of course explains this through karma, and Islam's explanation is the same as the Judeo-Christian one; God made everything good and then sin happened - I myself think putting that Tree in the Garden with appealing fruit was a poor design choice on God's part. It's almost as if the story is screaming allegory, but I digress.

 

I know I've brought this up in past discussions, but a big problem I have with these types of speeches you give is that you just assert how great the Bible is and that there is no competition. It is a giant begging the question.

 

Question 2: Whether or not a given religion is a minority or majority depends on the time; right now Christianity is on the decline and Islam is on the rise. IIRC the projections are that Islam will overtake Christianity around mid century. Recall that in Islam God first gave us Judaism, but that religion became corrupt so God gave us Christianity, but Christianity became corrupt so God gave us Islam. A Muslim making the same argument as you 50 years from now could easily say that God spoke through Christianity and allowed it to flourish, but as it became corrupt God took away Christianity's favor and gave it to Islam. This is clearly an incredibly poor argument on your part.

 

Unless I am mistaken the biblical references to Jesus' divinity is interpreted as either a misunderstanding or corruption of the original true word of God in the Muslim faith. Don't forget that Judaism also asserts that Jesus' divinity is a misunderstanding of NT phrasing. In fact Judaism views the Trinity doctrine as heresy as the Torah states that there is only God and none is beside him. So Christians also look at previous incarnations of Yahweh's religion and ignore what is being said and taught (as interpreted by their religious forebears).

 

Recall that even within the NT alone you have Jesus himself saying that not even the smallest part of the Law is abolished (until Heaven and Earth pass away, which clearly hasn't happened yet), yet you have Paul basically advocating to ignore the Law. How confused Yahweh must be. No religion is without its faults, Christianity included.

 

Actually if you assumed what I was saying you would be of the opinion that the God of the Bible is a fictitious character; the projection of various ancient people's thoughts from the Hebrew and Christian tradition.

 

That's my final comment to you because you have chosen to go in a circle again, saying how the bible is morally wrong from your own perspective, without any objective criteria. You are just repeating your arguments ad-nauseam. You did not answer the questions I posed to you. You say the bible is immoral, from your perspective, yet it might not from someone else's. What makes your perspective the correct one under moral relativism?

 

Under moral relativism you wouldn't be saying one type of morality is wrong, you would be arguing that all of them are equal, but that's not what you do, what you do is contradict your own beliefs, by pretending that the bible is objectively wrong while preaching there is no such thing as objective wrong. You can't have both ways. If there is only an atheist universe then there is no such thing as wrong, meaning you can only argue that the bible is just another set of morals which is not better or worse than any other set.

 

It's also clear you only really look at the bible using cherry-picking glasses, and assume there is no overall theme. You refer to a law for a small country and that law would have affected a few million people for a short period, but the new testament, which is the "law of the spirit of life", has been intended by God for dozens of billions of people. So then, when the atheists focus on the O.T, I find it laughable, the O.T is like the tip of an iceburg in God's will, it was a demonstration to us that TECHNICALLY He could be strictly just according to His incredibly holy standard of perfection, and not tolerate so much as one sin, which corrupts absolutely from His perfect standpoint. Instead He shows us that His desire to merciful is much greater, by dying on a cross and spreading a message of mercy that would basically be preached throughout the entirety of human history. The O.T has not spanned history and only pertained to Jewish people, for a limited time, a small country of people.

 

Well I have given criteria for why I think the Bible is morally wrong; as it pertains to the G*y issue I find that such actions do not cause harm so it is morally permissible, and I expanded on this idea in previous posts, and I have thoroughly responded to all of your reasons for why it is "harmful". In fact I thought I was thorough in answering all of your questions with the exception of "is it loving to rape people", which I thought the answer was obvious, not to mention it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

I think you misunderstand. The Bible is morally wrong (and does not have the hallmarks of a transcendent morality) from my perspective so I find it repulsive, and I can give you my reasoning for why I think those things. I understand that my morality is not some ultimate morality, but it is the best I personally have so I use it. Others are free to use or reject, in whole or in part, what I say. There is no contradiction, you are simply conflating my moral conviction with an assertion of objective morality. You are free to engage me in moral dialogue and attempt to convince me that your morals are better than mine, but so far your arguments are not the least bit convincing.

 

As Fjuri noted the topic is h*m*s*xuality so referencing scripture about h*m*s*xuality is not cherry picking. Are you ever going to answer my question: is killing G*y people as commanded in Leviticus 20:13 "gentle" and "loving"?

 

That "Law" was given to God's chosen people in order to keep them holy; not some random small country for the fun of it. Also we have scripture saying God does not change, so whether you like it or not this Law for God's chosen people can be used as an insight into God's unchanging character, and in addition we have Christ himself saying that the Law will not be abolished until Heaven and Earth pass away, so according to your Messiah as expressed in the NT this law is still in effect. Or is Paul right to ignore the Law; I'm so confused (not really, but I think you get the point).



#37 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 July 2016 - 05:34 AM

...

; I'm so confused (not really, but I think you get the point).

:worship:



#38 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 July 2016 - 07:06 AM

And then there is reality. It would probably be a good idea to clearly define what we are talking about when we are talking about religion.

As the OP states this post is about things that do not exist. Religion is not a conscious entity. It is a philosophical concept--an idea that describes a set of rules people can use to interface with their own mind and the environment. Other names we use to describe this set of rules are, headset, belief system, philosophy of life, worldview, Cristianity, Islam, etc.

In real life, human belief systems are eclectic in nature. Additionally in practice application of any religion's rules is uneven.

Belief systems contain individual rules. These rules are applied specifically as deemed by the individual who uses cognition to mediate and decide which rule to apply in a specific instance.

In a general sense the difference between a religion and a belief system cma be only one rule. That rule is whether the belief system contains a specific belief in a god. One can imagine that the belief in a god would add credibility and emphasis to the religionan as an authority component. But, subtract the belief in God and you have what is left. And what is left is an eclectict set of beliefs that we use to interface with ourselves and the environment. Suutract belief ig god from a set of
beliefs and all the rest of those beliefs still exist. The mi in our mind. take Alleged atheistsseem to infer that they don't then have a set of beliefs to interface with the rest of humanity. (they don't have a religion) when the have done awa wth the idea of a god. That however does not do away with the other 7 billion beings on the planet.

Thus the claim atheism is not a religion clouds thr issue. The reality is the individuals now claiming the are atheists usuall have use the same set of beliefs that the majority uses.

The addition of belief in God does not make the eclectic set of beliefs that I have observed (reality) in the human mind cause beings to cease to exist. We must always remember that we are individuals. The issue is not whether a god exists or not it is that we believe "we" do. And God by definition would be a different being than we are. This is no insignificant point. If we -1 being we still have 7 billion other beings to deal with.

The whole purpose of the religion or belief system is to give us a set of guidelines to interface with other beings. God is extraneous to that idea. To emphasize it again, the inferred but not often stated function of the belief system is to give us guidelines to interface with other intelligent beings--to keep conflict to a minimum and possibly eliminat it is altogether. That is a daunting task apparently as observed in all the violence in this world.

One of the names of a set of rules I left out is government. Government is simply another name for a religion or belief system. In the United States for example, god is replaced by the president--who is called the leader. The set of rules used by the citizens of the country are eclectic in nature and voted on by its citizenry. But make no mistake, it is still an eclectic set of rules that we use to interface with other beings. in the United States we have a rule that says not to murder other human beings. This rule is also found in what we commonly call Christianity. There is no difference in it appearing in the government set of rules and in the rules we find in any religion (Christianty as an example).

So then, what is significant is application of the rule not the core major difference in the rule. The point is if people don't obey this rule in significant numbers what happens to civilization? That's the elephant in the room.


 



#39 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 July 2016 - 12:39 PM

 

 

Mike: The reality is the individuals now claiming the are atheists usuall have use the same set of beliefs that the majority uses.

 

That's a good point Mike, and a good reminder that really when atheists say, "prove your God is God" they are not including themselves, by saying, "prove no God".

 

I have noticed that, it's a subtle begging-the-question, because it gets the atheist into the, "no ideological position" category, or, "no belief system", as though the atheist position is somehow excluded from discussion as some type of objectively correct position.

 

Goku says, "why is your God the correct on". I believe I can give some good reasons. But why is his none-God ideology the correct one?

 

Can you see the problem, he expects us to believe that macro-evolution is a fact and abiogenesis is inevitable and that it actually happened, along with the big-bang tornado-in-a-junkyard, that created a 747 jet. Why is that the correct position? 

 

I think the strongest implication that the bible is the correct word from God, is that it's influence on the world has been more powerful than any other book, if we look across history. Meaning that if God is NOT the God of the bible, then most people would agree that He has at least made it look like the bible is the correct message. It gives good answers to why people behave the way they do, and why the world is the way it is, it gives a meaningful and amazing message about Christ, and provides incredible wisdom from His words that a fictional writer would struggle to match. Simply put, the first thing "God" should have done, is not allow the bible's existence, because the other holy books, if one of them is true, or some other religion is true, are in second place by a long, long way. A metaphorical country mile. The deep questions of the human heart need answers, and the bible gives satisfying ones that actually mean something. 

 

I remember that guy Nathan Wheeler, he basically experienced a lot of the none-Christian religions. He said he flown in his astral body and got into all kinds of weird beliefs and tripped out on the light, etc...and at the end of it all he said that other religions, at the end of the day, just don't mean anything deep. They can be interesting, they can be experiential, but ultimately they don't fill the void. Christianity does, and no matter what the evolutionists argue, .that is undeniably true. Take it from someone who knows - for Wheeler experienced it all. That was his conclusion - other beliefs are shallow, ultimately they are fabrications of human wisdom. That is not to say that each philosophy has no merit at all, in fact most philosophies have SOME TRUTH, which is why they appeal to people, and ultimately that is why they work, because they carry something with some truth/merit. Or partial wisdom, etc..and they build the rest of the philosophy from the, "some wisdom". A trick that is hard to spot, but you have to search for the error, which is intermingled with the wisdom. Usually it will come in some strange, unjustified belief, such as reincarnation.



#40 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 July 2016 - 04:30 PM

Mike the wiz said:

I have noticed that, it's a subtle begging-the-question, because it gets the atheist into the, "no ideological position" category, or, "no belief system", as though the atheist position is somehow excluded from discussion as some type of objectively correct position.

Absolutely. Atheissm is only one belief of a multibelief indidual. That's one of the points I've been to make since I've been here. They they fail to want to acknowledge that believe in God doesn't mean that you're going to necessarily do bad things. That anymore that because someone has atheism is a believe doesn't mean that he want to do bad things the. We're not treated usually to the rest of the atheist beleifs. They are a mystery.

Goku says, "why is your God the correct on". I believe I can give some good reasons. But why is his none-God ideology the correct one?

Apparently because he sees himself as an authority figure. Therefore only what he decides is true can be true.

Can you see the problem, he expects us to believe that macro-evolution is a fact and abiogenesis is inevitable and that it actually happened, along with the big-bang tornado-in-a-junkyard, that created a 747 jet. Why is that the correct position?

I know you can guess my position on this one. But I will say it for our readers sake. Bottom line is intelligence and intelligence can create works of fiction I.E. Star Trek, Star Wars etc. Darwin was intelligent so he conceived and wrote a story. All he had to do was call it a theory and let a bunch of gullible people read it. As for my part, bottom line if I wanted universe I would create it.
I know of no other way than to start anthing than with intelligence. It's the main ingredient to knowing anything.

I think the strongest implication that the bible is the correct word from God, is that it's influence on the world has been more powerful than any other book, if we look across history. Meaning that if God is NOT the God of the bible, then most people would agree that He has at least made it look like the bible is the correct message. It gives good answers to why people behave the way they do, and why the world is the way it is, it gives a meaningful and amazing message about Christ, and provides incredible wisdom from His words that a fictional writer would struggle to match. Simply put, the first thing "God" should have done, is not allow the bible's existence, because the other holy books, if one of them is true, or some other religion is true, are in second place by a long, long way. A metaphorical country mile. The deep questions of the human heart need answers, and the bible gives satisfying ones that actually mean something.

the opening of the book of Genesis tells us in a nutshell what man's problem is. Man has taken to himself the knowledge of good and evil. Since I have given up gorging myself on the tree of good and evil I am the happiest I've ever been in my life.

As Scripture says, "See that you be not troubled for these things must come to pass." Now, that's good advice!

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users