The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@fmf said
Your assertions about what is and isn't the "truth" when it comes to supernatural things are entirely subjective. The discussion of it is 100% between you and me. Your "God" isn't posting on this thread, so there is nothing going on between me and your "God" when it comes to your opinions and beliefs. We are both being subjective about this and about morality. And that's fine. There's nothing untoward about that.

Metaphors and subjections any ole dance will do.

@kellyjay said
Metaphors and subjections any ole dance will do.

What "subjection" are you talking about? What "dance"?

@thinkofone said
No matter how many times you "start from the beginning". No matter how many times you talk around it. If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

The Bible very widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics suc ...[text shortened]... erpretation of the Bible, therefore the Bible does not provide you with an objective moral standard.

You seem to be conflating the existence of moral absolutes with me having an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I don’t believe the latter is a necessary requirement for the former to exist. The fact that an objective reality exists is not dependent on our subjective interpretations thereof.

@dj2becker said
You seem to be conflating the existence of moral absolutes with me having an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I don’t believe the latter is a necessary requirement for the former to exist. The fact that an objective reality exists is not dependent on our subjective interpretations thereof.

. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible.

You can reject that all you want. It's not what I wrote. Yours a straw man argument.

The following is what I wrote:

No matter how many times you "start from the beginning". No matter how many times you talk around it. If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

The Bible very widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

Your interpretation of the Bible is subjective. You have no objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, therefore the Bible does not provide you with an objective moral standard.

Evidently now I'll have to add "No matter how many straw man arguments you make". You continue to make one intellectually dishonest post after another. It's what you do. It's who you are.

@thinkofone said
. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible.

You can reject that all you want. It's not what I wrote. Yours a straw man argument.

The following is what I wrote:
[quote] No matter how many times you "start from the beginning". No matter how many times you talk around it. If you don't ...[text shortened]... ontinue to make one intellectually dishonest post after another. It's what you do. It's who you are.

The words 'intellectually dishonest' are rich coming from someone who has been refusing to answer questions for decades on here.

If you are not arguing that there are no moral absolutes based on the fact that there is no objective standard for interpreting the Bible, what on earth are you on about? Some could argue that the Bible is the objective standard by which the Bible should be interpreted, i.e scripture should be used to interpret scripture and single verses should not be taken in isolation and out of context like you do all the time.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

OT or NT?

Stick to your guns.
What diff does it make?

Stay with your principles.

As a non-believer, the nuances of the different translations means very little to me. Sorry.

You believe the nuances between the different translations of the Bible is akin to the differences in how God is portrayed between the OT and NT?

Have you thought that through?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You believe the nuances between the different translations of the Bible is akin to the differences in how God is portrayed between the OT and NT?

Have you thought that through?

Many think the God of the OT and NT are different, they are not.
I recall you attempting to tell me that.

@kellyjay said
Many think the God of the OT and NT are different, they are not.
I recall you attempting to tell me that.

Take faith out of the equation. If you read the OT and NT as you would any other book there is no way you would conclude that they portray the same deity. No way in a million years.

@kellyjay said
Many think the God of the OT and NT are different, they are not.
I recall you attempting to tell me that.

Christianity is quite obviously a breakaway religion from Judaism. The OT and NT are clearly different. The latter [Christianity] commandeered the literature of its predecessor. Revelation was glued on in about as clumsy a way as possible, as was stuff like 'born in Bethlehem' and virgin birth whathaveyou, and of course the oblique Trinity stuff was conjured up to try to make it work after the maverick rabbi some people had pinned their hopes on was executed.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Take faith out of the equation. If you read the OT and NT as you would any other book there is no way you would conclude that they portray the same deity. No way in a million years.

You are not looking at the fact it was God who created a people by calling out Abraham. Establish them as a nation, gave them His law, had them track their family heritage so we could not only tell what family each belong to but foretold and brought about the birth of Jesus Christ. It’s all God’s doing there is only One.

@kellyjay said
You are not looking at the fact it was God who created a people by calling out Abraham. Establish them as a nation, gave them His law, had them track their family heritage so we could not only tell what family each belong to but foretold and brought about the birth of Jesus Christ. It’s all God’s doing there is only One.

And you are not taking into account that the God of the OT is a petty, jealous and tribal God.

@dj2becker said
The words 'intellectually dishonest' are rich coming from someone who has been refusing to answer questions for decades on here.

If you are not arguing that there are no moral absolutes based on the fact that there is no objective standard for interpreting the Bible, what on earth are you on about? Some could argue that the Bible is the objective standard by which the B ...[text shortened]... ture and single verses should not be taken in isolation and out of context like you do all the time.

If you are not arguing that there are no moral absolutes based on the fact that there is no objective standard for interpreting the Bible, what on earth are you on about?

Becker asks this despite the fact that I included what I'm "on about" in the very post to which he was responding and despite that fact it's already been answered many times already.

We've all seen this movie time and time again.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You believe the nuances between the different translations of the Bible is akin to the differences in how God is portrayed between the OT and NT?

Have you thought that through?

Let's see if we can get at least one thing established.

You care?
Or you don't care?

Which is it, before I labor on some reply to analyze your question.

Its of a concern to you or it is of no concern to you?
Which ?

Let's see if we can get at least one thing established.

You care?
Or you don't care?

Which is it, before I labor on some reply to analyze your question.

Its of a concern to you or it is of no concern to you?
Which ?

Some of the problems I have had here is further pursuing talk with posters who obviously don't want to be bothered with reasonings about my Christian faith.

From now on, when I get signals that someone is definitely not interested, I'm doing my best to leave you alone.

That means I'll just stop reading anything further you have to write on the subjects.