@dj2becker saidAnd yet ANOTHER red herring from becker. And AGAIN, one that he's tossed out before at that. Becker is unable to provide an objective standard for interpreting that Bible and so continues to talk in circles.
Assuming one Christian supposedly believes that the Bible approves of slavery and another doesn’t. Do you think they’re both right or is one of them wrong? I think we both know the one that believes slavery is ok is wrong but you won’t have the balls to admit it. Yet again. The fact that some people may take verses out of context doesn’t mean the Bible isn’t clear on the matter.
No matter how many red herrings you toss out. No matter how many times you pretend to not know what I've been "on about". No matter how many straw man arguments you make. 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 is 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.
@thinkofone saidYou frequently copy and paste the same message over and over again in the forum. How is that not spamming?
Like usual, when faced with points you cannot logically refute, you turn to deceit and mindlessly regurgitating the dogma that you've been taught.
[b]Everyone here knows you have this ministry whose foundation is hidden from
everyone but you. Everyone here knows you have this ministry whose foundation is hidden from
everyone but you. The gospel that has been preached ...[text shortened]... nsion skills. You can't comprehend what people write, so you blame them for keeping things "hidden".
You frequently follow sonship and Kelly around the SF getting in the same old tired japs. How is that not trolling?
You frequently seek to put the honest and upfront beliefs of others under scrutiny while keeping your own beliefs hidden and protected. How is this not hypocritical?
@thinkofone saidI believe in Jesus, the One in scripture, not the one between your ears.
And more of the same from KJ...
I understand that you believe the gospel preached by those other than Jesus.
I, on the other hand, am here to advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
You repeatedly and consistently show that you do not believe the gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth. You are deaf and blind to the words that Jesus said "are spirit and are life". Yet you call Him "Lord".
2 edits
@kellyjay saidYou've repeatedly shown that you don't believe that gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth.
I believe in Jesus, the One in scripture, not the one between your ears.
This despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of the words that He delivered during that time. In fact, it's probably the most prevalent theme of His ministry.
You believe in a different gospel: A self-serving gospel ABOUT Jesus that is antithetical to the gospel preached BY Jesus.
1 edit
I see that you're still taking what others write and addressing pretty much each sentence as if it were written in a vacuum. It's unfortunate that you are unable to read in context.
I think you are not DEALING with the central issue of the moral argument for God's existence. You may not be the only one veering from the real issue.
I see you and Kelly talking about the indwelling Spirit of God.
I think this is off the point of the OP.
It is an important matter in its own right. But I think we going down the wrong road to discuss this in relation to a philosophical argument of the OP.
I love the quote the Bible. But this is more of a philosophical argument rather than one about the teaching of Christ and the apostles.
It is about the source of our real and legitimate convictions of what is really good for us to do. And to whom are the moral duties to be good rather than evil owed.
I agree with some posters that you are clueless about the New Testament teaching. However, I don't think that matter to this philosophical argument for God as an final origin of the moral universe.
@sonship saidDo you think a set of moral rules or a good shepherd shows us how to walk? The question of moral notions is proof of God in my opinion. Not because we agree on what they are as much as we all have them! We are a broken race so our views of them are conflicted, yet we argue over which is better and one set should be over all while another disgarded. No one lives without them so we are all bound by them, which means in my opinion only someone greater than us did that.
@ThinkOfOneI see that you're still taking what others write and addressing pretty much each sentence as if it were written in a vacuum. It's unfortunate that you are unable to read in context.
I think you are not DEALING with the central issue of the moral argument for God's existence. You may not be the only one veering from the real issue.
I se ...[text shortened]... that matter to this philosophical argument for God as an final origin of the moral universe.
@thinkofone saidI don’t believe in a dead Jesus.
You've repeatedly shown that you don't believe that gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth.
This despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of the words that He delivered during that time. In fact, it's probably the most prevalent theme of His ministry.
You believe in a different gospel: A self-serving gospel ABOUT Jesus that is antithetical to the gospel preached BY Jesus.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@thinkofone saidYou sound like a stuck record. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself and answering questions? Your arguments are moot. The questions you refuse to answer expose the faulty assumptions of your argument and hence you won’t answer them. Instead you simply copy and paste the same drivel over and over again without pausing to think for yourself.
And yet ANOTHER red herring from becker. And AGAIN, one that he's tossed out before at that. Becker is unable to provide an objective standard for interpreting that Bible and so continues to talk in circles.
No matter how many red herrings you toss out. No matter how many times you pretend to not know what I've been "on about". No matter how many straw man arguments yo ...[text shortened]... erpretation of the Bible, therefore the Bible does not provide you with an objective moral standard.
1 edit
@dj2becker saidRight.
You sound like a stuck record. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself and answering questions? Your arguments are moot. The questions you refuse to answer expose the faulty assumptions of your argument and hence you won’t answer them. Instead you simply copy and paste the same drivel over and over again without pausing to think for yourself.
Yet somehow you're the one who has been unable to provide an objective standard for interpreting that Bible and has been trying to dance around this fact.
The fact is that unless you can provide an objective standard for interpreting the Bible, the Bible does not give you an objective moral standard.
The fact is that you hate truth.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@thinkofone saidThe moral argument for the existence of God makes no mention of the Bible that is a seperate discussion in its own right. Your strawman is well disguised but not well enough.
Right.
Yet somehow you're the one who has been unable to provide an objective standard for interpreting that Bible and has been trying to dance around this fact.
The fact is that unless you can provide an objective standard for interpreting the Bible, the Bible does not give you an objective moral standard.
The fact is that you hate truth.
@dj2becker saidBecker is back to pretending that he doesn't understand what our discussion is about. His level of repeated dishonesty is remarkable.
The moral argument for the existence of God makes no mention of the Bible that is a seperate discussion in its own right. Your strawman is well disguised but not well enough.
This was addressed on Page 13 of this thread.
This is what becker does. This is who becker is. His complete lack of integrity is appalling. Unfortunately it is not uncommon amongst "salvation by faith alone" Christians. They worship a self-serving god that makes them feel good. They hate truth.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
4 edits
@thinkofone saidYet somehow you're the one who has been unable to provide an objective standard for interpreting that Bible and has been trying to dance around this fact.
Right.
Yet somehow you're the one who has been unable to provide an objective standard for interpreting that Bible and has been trying to dance around this fact.
The fact is that unless you can provide an objective standard for interpreting the Bible, the Bible does not give you an objective moral standard.
The fact is that you hate truth.
You are the one dancing around the fact that if two people have contradictory interpretations of the Bible one of them could be wrong and one of them could be right. And you're dancing around the fact that even Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires.
The fact is that unless you can provide an objective standard for interpreting the Bible, the Bible does not give you an objective moral standard.
That is not a fact. That is your subjective opinion which I believe to be in error because you negate the guidance of God's Spirit that leads us into all the truth.
The fact is that you hate truth.
Which 'truth' do I hate? The relative truth that there is no ultimate/absolute truth? The 'truth' that Jesus was just a man and that his teachings are simply optional? The 'truth' that there are no moral absolutes and that everyone is free live in whatever sin they prefer? Whatever you say TOO.
@KellyJay
Let me comment in a little more detail if I can.
Do you think a set of moral rules or a good shepherd shows us how to walk?
I think initially God gave us the commandments. But their real purpose was to EXPOSE the fallen nature which CANNOT live up to God's standard. Rather being given for us to keep they were given to EXPOSE our need for salvation.
Having said that, the law does provide something of a restriction or a breaking system, (as it were) to LIMIT the amount of moral degradation mankind can suffer. The book of Romans shows that all the world is under condemnation from God. But in the early chapters it shows how God provided some LIMITATION in a way of RESTRICTION - (His law and man's conscience).
The Good Shepherd Christ does more then to show a way to live. He comes INTO man's being to live a mingled and united life in which His perfect nature is blended with our fallen nature.
It is not "Here is the way" as much as "I Myself am the Way. Abide organically in oneness with Me."
That is the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant is also called a "ministry of condemnation". I think its chief function was to expose the sin nature dragging man down and away from God. This fall can only be somewhat restricted by any written code Divine or Human.
The question of moral notions is proof of God in my opinion.
I agree. But it is not easy always from me to explain to people why.
You see it is so without it being necessary for the person to believe in God.
Another reason why it is difficult to argue for me is that objections will be raised -
"But people can do great evil in the name of God."
"Whatever code you propose, it cannot cover EVERY fine hypothetical situation."
I think these are strong objections that have to be dealt with before you can make the argument for God's existence because we know absolute moral standards must exist.
Not because we agree on what they are as much as we all have them! We are a broken race so our views of them are conflicted, yet we argue over which is better and one set should be over all while another disgarded. No one lives without them so we are all bound by them, which means in my opinion only someone greater than us did that.
We are a broken race. But without revelation from God we might not know it.
Many assume things are the way they are suppose to be.
So to some, if things are just the way they are supposed to be then talking about Ultimate Right and Wrong is kind of impractical and unable to be spread over the plethora of difficult ethical situations over varied cultures and times.
I am not sure how to make the argument without resorting to the revelation of the Bible that we are a broken race and CANNOT live up to this perfect standard. I think I would explore how to show that even though we cannot fully live up to the good that we know, it still must have its end in a final transcendent moral agent.
That's all I can write this morning.
@sonship
Having someone confronted with a story with proof. doesn't mean they will accept it!
Having someone confronted with a story without proof doesn't mean it will be rejected.
When we build up our world views, how we see thing by the filters of what we
accept as true. It is a mountain to overcome to change, it happens but it isn't an
easy process and feelings get involved. Look at the hate between left and right
leaning politico views leaving God out of this discussion now. There is no good
that can be seen when one looks at the other for some, it is always something
bad if its the other guy, and all excuses are afforded those on their sides. This is
true regardless or left or right leaning people with some its worse than others.
Right and wrong are clearly seen but not applied equally, even when confronted
directly with evidence of this its ignored or some justification is applied.
The struggle isn't winning arguments because we are not fighting or struggling
against flesh and blood here or anywhere else.