Objective Moral Values

[Vangelovski]

I would hope that most could understand the difference between man's abuse of people's faith, as opposed to the actual faith itself. Equating the Church with the religion, is also a mistake in itself.

Agreed.

Osiris does make one good point, in that these men who abuse their "positions" should be held to account by the community.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The biggest problems is neo-pagan alexander the great lunatics among our people that are obsessed with a person that didn't do anything for Macedonia and it's people or left anything that our people could be proud of.

Is that the biggest problem? I thought it had more to do with those that despise their own history, like some who would prefer to acknowledge Serbian saints rather than Macedonian saints. Do you know of any people that loath their own people that much?

[Risto the Great]

Do you know of any people that loath their own people that much?

VMRO DPMNE by the looks of it.

[Vangelovski]

VMRO DPMNE by the looks of it.

Even though its objectively wrong, there are times when I loath some of our own people...

[osiris]

Thanks vangelovski I applaud the fact that you attend a Macedonian church and I hope you can be a positive influence

[makedonin]

Now I got few minutes on my hand to view the Videos that Vangel have posted.

William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins (this one might be a little hard for Makedonin to grasp, but still interesting)

YouTube - Richard Dawkins Is Too Emotional and Dishonest about William Lane Craig (HT: Birdieupon)

I wonder Vangel, if you have seen this video and understood what Craig is saying there on 1:50 Minute?

Should I rephrase it for you? He says: " I will be first to admit that NONE OF THIS PROOFS THAT GOD EXIST!"

Is that the "superior argument" you were babbling about?

You must be fucking kidding me, right? So you have to prove that God exists, or rather that the BIBLICAL God exists, before you go on and debate anything related to him.

So I went to the Craig article you complained I did not countered.

What I see there:

For any action A and moral agent S, we can explicate the notions of moral requirement, prohibition, and permission of A for S as follows:

A is required of S if and only if a just and loving God commands S to do A.

A is forbidden to S if and only if a just and loving God commands S not to do A.

A is permitted for S if and only if a just and loving God does not command S not to do A.

Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands, they are not independent of God.

Here Craig basically admits it that the second part of the Euthyphro Dilemma is true, just as I said, that is, what ever God commands it is good. How could he otherwise? It is exactly what the old testament is telling us. If God commands you to kill infants and rape women, than it must be true per default, even if it appears wrong in ones own judgment.

So far we agree.

Neither are God’s commands arbitrary, for they are the necessary expressions of his just and loving nature. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so forth, and his commandments are reflections of his own character.
God’s character is definitive of moral goodness; it serves as the paradigm of moral goodness.
Thus, the morally good/bad is determined by reference to God’s nature;

In the light of the above Video, where Craig says that nothing of what he is talking about proofs that God does exists, the above comments of his are only another presumption.

Not only that, in the light of the Old Testament one can clearly display that God have done many bad things bent his rules etc.

SO if it is true that as you put it God has given us the sense for distinguishing right or wrong, than the God of the Old Testament in the light of that sense appears thoroughly unjust, cruel and evil, not as Craig argues.

If he comes with his the argument of the previous video, where he uses the fallacy of oversimplification (now I see where your training camp was) and asks the other debater from which source or how he knows rape, slavery, killing of infants and other ugly things attributed to God in the Old Testament are bad, than he begs the question:
"How will he know that it is a bad if the following scenario takes place: 'Say someone kills his own child and claim that God commanded him to do so?' How is he going to know that this is bad and that God did not command that person to kill his child, specially when the God of the Bible have been commanding such nasty crimes to be done"

If the non-theist should demand, “Why pick God’s nature as definitive of the Good?” the answer is that God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being, and a being which is the paradigm of goodness is greater than one which merely exemplifies goodness. Unless we are nihilists, we have to recognize some ultimate standard of value, and God is the least arbitrary stopping point.

Again, this is a presumption that he him self has admitted in the above video that it ain't proven at all, specially for the Biblical God.

He also argues that science bases on presumption. Yes true, but Science have proven through many observation that this assumptions are valid to this date. This is not the case of the Biblical God.

If some day the science disproves it's own presumptions, than it will only advance new theories, axioms or what ever else. This does not goes for your Biblical "truth".

Also that Craigs and your arguments are fallacy in it self is also made obvious by the very common circular argument that he and any other fundamentalist use, here how it goes:

Everything in the Bible must be true. The Bible says it is the word of God and God would never lie.


This argument commits the fallacy of begging the question. The argument seems to be:

P1: The Bible says it is the word of God.
P2: God would never lie.
C: Everything in the Bible must be true.
The problem is that this argument would only be convincing if we assumed that the Biblical claim reported in P1 is true. But this means that the argument is only convincing if we assume that what the Bible tells us is true. That's the very thing we were supposed to be proving in the first place! Thus, this argument engages in circular reasoning.

In general, an argument begs the question when it implicitly or explicitly assumes the truth of whatever it is supposed to be proving, i.e., when it engages in circular reasoning.

Is this what the "Intelligent Design" proponents fear, that science could one day prove 'everything'...where the God industry becomes obsolete and redundent...?

Now you're starting to sound like you've come from the latest gathering of the 'Earth is Flat' society...the speed of light has been proven and its speed determined as recently as the 1980's...as technology improves i.e. facilities like CERN, the calibration will improve and tolerance for error will diminish even further...

Those are really valid observation Phoenix!

In many cases science has proven that the Bible has false data that now days are common knowledge. It is OK if those things are taken as the uninformed view point of a nomad tribe of Izraelites, but fundamentalist and "Intelligent Design scientists" are trying to defend the indefensible inerrancy doctrine and than expect us to accept their childish arguments about science. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Here are few of the scientific proven fact that shows that the Bible is not the word of God:

• In Genesis 1:3-5 the light is created before the Sun(Genesis 1:15-16). Some fundamentalists are trying to argue that just like in the Revelation 21:23 the light was coming from God him self.
  That is fallacy, cause obviously God have separated the light from the darkness, which is another scientific fallacy. Darkness is only absence of light, and has no existence on it self. To that if the light was from God, and we take it that darkness has it's own substance and existence and was separate from the light by God, than we have to assume that God had also a dark side of him self. If that so, George Lucas had right in the Star Wars saga.
  Another question will be, where did God went so that we needed Sun for light, thus we are not able to see his light anymore?
  They try to go around this, but it is glaring fact that this is scientific fallacy in the Bible. Light with out source and the substance of darkness are absurdity in it self.
• Genesis 1:15-16 want us to believe that the moon (the smaller light) is a light source! Science knows it better and we know that the Moon only reflects the suns ray during the night. During some of its phases, you can't even see it at all!
• In Revelation 6:12-14 we ought to believe that the stars will drop down from the sky. The sun ought to turn black while the moon should turn red. We can wait as much as we want, but with the new knowledge in astronomy, it is definitely clear that the universe is expanding, which makes it absolutely clear that stars will never fall on earth. The Bible authors obviously thought that the stars were little balls of light that could fall to the Earth "as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind." If a star comes any near to the earth, it will melt it immediately and won't even have the chance to fall on it.
• Bible authors were flat earth subscribers. The Psalm 135:7 tells us that the clouds are rising from the ends of the earth. Also it tells us that the wind is stored by God in storehouses. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of meteorology or basic science can tell you that wind is not produced from “storehouses”! Psalms 104:5 tells us that God have set the earth on it's foundations and the earth can't be moved! That is a absurdity and presupposes that the sun is moving around the earth and not other wise. A verse normally paraded by fundamentalist as proving that the Bible had scientific foreknowledge is this one from the book of Job 26:1,7. However in passage Job 26:1 it is clearly stated that Job is the one who is speaking, not God. Second to that God replied to Job's "scientific foreknowledge" in passage Job 38:1-4 and declares that Job is babbling and asks him, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?". No wonder that the Church was also flat earth society.
• The Bible considers the grasshoppers Lev 11:21-23 and related insects to have four legs. Every encyclopedia will tell you that they have six. You can look up here and count it for your self.
• The bible considers the bats to be bird Lev 11:13-19, but it is a mammal that can fly.
• The Bible authors thought that the snails/slugs melt when they move Psalm 58:8. That is absurdity in it self.

One can go on and google the absurd apologetics and explanations for the above and similar passages of the Bible just to see how loose the reasoning of the fundamentalists is getting when concerning to prove that the Bible is inerrant.

Why do they do so? Because their argument is flawed when saying that the Bible is the word of God that has no contradiction. But it does in relation to reality and in relation to philosophy of morals too.

So, what was this all about? You say something like objective what? Crimes was it, Biblical crimes I would say.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

I don't think you have understood the arguments Craig has put forward, so I'm not sure how to debate this with you any further.

You definately have not understood Bible passages (or you just don't want to, preferring to take them out of their textual, linguistic, historic, cultural and political context), so I'm not sure how one is to debate those with you any further either.

One example Makedonin provides is the following:

The bible considers the bats to be bird Lev 11:13-19, but it is a mammal that can fly.

This is ridiculous! Why? Because the Bible is not meant to classify animals according to modern biological categories. If it did so, how on earth would the people at the time understand what it was about? Its like saying the Bible does not mention the internet - of course it doesn't - its not an IT manual to start with and further, if it did, noone would understand what it was on about until 2-3000 years later! But using EXEGESIS we can understand what it means today by looking at it logically and within context.

The rest of Makedonin's "examples" suffer from the same problem and that is why I have ignored them - because they are so mind-blowingly stupid!

In fact, debating this whole topic with you is like debating the Interim Accord with Buktop, Volk or the UMD. Its impossible when the other side is being intellectually dishonest or just does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the issues in front of them.

I see you have copied and pasted some athiest arguments in English you would never be able to produce yourself (didn't you wail on about this?). Too bad the reasoning around it was ridiculous! I'll make one attempt to refute that here, but I highly doubt you can be intellectually honest in your response. You copied and pasted the following claim:

P1: The Bible says it is the word of God.
P2: God would never lie.
C: Everything in the Bible must be true.
The problem is that this argument would only be convincing if we assumed that the Biblical claim reported in P1 is true. But this means that the argument is only convincing if we assume that what the Bible tells us is true. That's the very thing we were supposed to be proving in the first place! Thus, this argument engages in circular reasoning.

In general, an argument begs the question when it implicitly or explicitly assumes the truth of whatever it is supposed to be proving, i.e., when it engages in circular reasoning.

The problem with this refutation is that it pretends we need to rely on "assumption" when we do not. We don't need to assume anything (I don't) and we can independently check whether it is reasonable to believe a biblical passage is 'true' or not by using various faculties. Further, this very refutation is more accurate for atheism than theism, and one of the obvious examples is the begining of the universe. Atheists would have us believe that this mind-blowingly massive and complex universe came out of nothing! But how reasonable is it to believe that assumption as opposed to believing it was created by God? Makedonin once tried to ridiculously reinterpret and redefine "nothing" as actually meaning "something". That is the biggest joke I have ever come across. Nothing is just that - the absence of everything.

[Michael]

Now I got few minutes on my hand to view the Videos that Vangel have posted.


I wonder Vangel, if you have seen this video and understood what Craig is saying there on 1:50 Minute?

Should I rephrase it for you? He says: " I will be first to admit that NONE OF THIS PROOFS THAT GOD EXIST!"

Is that the "superior argument" you were babbling about?

All Craig was saying was that without God, man's existence is without any purpose or meaning. Man and the universe are accidents which are doomed to suffer and die in a relatively short period of time without any ultimate justice and point etc. And this is a hopeless and sad predicament. But, here Craig rightly tells his audience that just because it would be a sad predicament does not mean that it is not true.

However, in this thread, we are talking about objective moral values and this is actually a philosophical proof for Gods existence.

It comes in the form of a deductive argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

If the 2 premises are true (or more reasonable than their negations), the conclusion follows logically.

Makedonin, its like you stopped watching the vid at that point (1:50) without bothering to understand what Craig was saying and where he was going with it. You just LOOOVED it when Craig said "I will be first to admit that NONE OF THIS PROOFS THAT GOD EXIST" because you saw that you could just run with it, twist it up, mash the context, and throw it somewhere in your post. You're the king of committing the straw man fallacy.

Definition from web: One commits the straw man fallacy when they alter the argument of an opponent and then proceed to attack the altered argument. If you succeed in defeating a position that your opponent is not defending, it doesn’t mean you win!

[Mikail]

You know what gang? I just wish all you guys could argue as strongly and as passionately for Macedonia and the unity of Macedonians as you do for God!

[Komita]

You know what gang? I just wish all you guys could argue as strongly and as passionately for Macedonia and the unity of Macedonians as you do for God!

It is more important to be in unity with God because witihout him there is no salvation.

[Mr Brandy]

You know what gang? I just wish all you guys could argue as strongly and as passionately for Macedonia and the unity of Macedonians as you do for God!

Mikail - if all Macedonians believed in God there would be no problem with unity of our people. Many of our people have strayed away from the truth - the infighting and bickering is a natural conclusion. If we unify under God the result will be a unified and strong Macedonia.

[Mikail]

Sorry guys but I disagree on this one. Unity under Macedonia and only Macedonia, will result in a unified and strong Macedonia.

A very small percentage of Macedonians don't believe in God. We must first believe in ourselves!

You can throw god into the equation if you so wish but he comes a very distant second.

[Mr Brandy]

Sorry guys but I disagree on this one. Unity under Macedonia and only Macedonia, will result in a unified and strong Macedonia.

A very small percentage of Macedonians don't believe in God. We must first believe in ourselves!

You can throw god into the equation if you so wish but he comes a very distant second.

Mikail - I respect your right to disagree - after all God has granted all of his creation free will. The believe in self, people, ideas, thoughts are all egoic pursuits that will for sure let you down in the end. The belief in God transcends ego and the human notion of time therefore it is something infinitely more powerful then any thought or idea conceived by man. You can't throw God into the equation - He is the equation.

[Louis Riel]

"The belief in God transcends ego and the human notion of time therefore it is something infinitely more powerful then any thought or idea conceived by man."

Who's to say that God isnt an idea conceived by humans?

[makedonin]

Makedonin,

I don't think you have understood the arguments Craig has put forward, so I'm not sure how to debate this with you any further.

I perfectly understand the argument that Craig puts. It is the usual oversimplified and isolated argument you or Craig use.

I also understand the underlining agenda and zeal of Craig.

For the sake of the argument let us say I agree with Craig that God is needed to have objective morals and that he somehow instilled us with the sense of what is good or wrong. So objective morals come from God.

In the videos you provide he is pulling the tongue of the other dude to say the above, so I have said it.

The next thing I would be hearing is that the God of the Bible is the one that is postulating this objective morals.

But that instilled sense of moral tells me exactly that the God of the Bible is bending the moral values how he prefers or needs. He is also cruel and selfish God that I with my instilled moral values can't say that he is a moral being.

That is my problem with the whole under cover semi philosophical argument you and Craig are giving.

When Craig's argument is taken out of it's isolation, the next question that will be asked is whose version of God is the real one that postulates the objective morals. Is it the Christianity and which brand and flavor of it. Or maybe the Jewish or Muslem God?

You see, Craig's argument is only than valid when hiding in isolation and taken over simplistic. Once facing reality of religion of human kind, it fails short of convincing.

But even if we go and say his argument is somehow valid, and God is the measurement of the objective morals and this is God of the Bible, than this is only another subjective moral value, namely GODS SUBJECTIVE MORALS, and objectivity per definition means not to be bound to any subject or bias, but be valid in any circumstance and independent of any observer or subject.

He knows that and that is why he is arguing and preassigning that God in his essence is good, benevolent etc.

BUT taken in the light of the Bible that he set off to defend with the given argument, this obviously becomes a gullible argument, cause the Bible God is proven not to be per default good, benevolent etc. Instead he is jealous God per his definition:

Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.
Deuteronomy 6:15

The God of the bible is a selfish God, and selfishness is subjective which makes Craig's presumption false.

So, Craig's argument and his hidden agenda are contradicting presumptions that does not serve his cause and are semi philosophy and science.

Further, this very refutation is more accurate for atheism than theism, and one of the obvious examples is the begining of the universe.
Atheists would have us believe that this mind-blowingly massive and complex universe came out of nothing! But how reasonable is it to believe that assumption as opposed to believing it was created by God?

Scientific theories change each day with each new observation or disapproval of given theories and hypothesis.

It is work in progress which will never cease.

What you have to make your mind boggling is your own flawed universe creation theory which can't stand the critical eye of science, which being such as light existing before the sun was created!

Common every elementary kid would know it better, and you want to sell this as some fact.

The moon being source of light! What a fucking laughable proposition.

The casual argument used from creationists such as Craig to explain the creation of the universe is flawed and bases on axioms:

• Reality and Universe are Causal chain is the first postulate.
  
  This much any human can figure out. But it is a axiom since there is no direct prove of it. It bases only on limited human experience therefore subjective. A objective proof is still not found.
  
• Causality is time in order.
  
  There are quite excellent physical experimental to support the relativity theory which lead us to believe that this is not true and in fact causality as expressed in physics law is time symmetric, and the direction is given by the relative entropy.
  
• Causality is ontologically ordered. (Craig's argument, comes from Hellenistic philosophy)
  
  This is a argument from philosophy which tells us that ones own cause must be "greater than one self'', God being the ultimate greater cause. Therefore fundamentalists are speaking of ontological reality.
  
  How do you define proper ontological system and what does mean "greater" in comparison to entities such as human being and God?
  
  There is no way to define such thing other than make another assumption.
  
• The last argument of theological philosophers such as Craig argue that the termination of an ontological chain of causality (ever-greater) must end with God.
  
  This is something that again theologists want to presume. Someone will rightly ask why we presume that this is so?
  
  Specially in relation to creation it can be argued as many physicist argue that the universe as well can be seen as Perpetuum mobile which can self sustain and does not need greater cause. Other have argued that this universe is part of a greater Multiversum and the the primary cause of this universe is only part of a expanding Multiversum.
  
  What ever being the case, one can't argue for the one or the other, cause both are unproved presumption and can be considered Prime Axiom.
  
  The burden of proof still is to be found on the part of the theistic argument, which has to provide valid argument why chain of ever-greater causality ends with God. They have to prove this, but naturally can't, Craig have admitted in the previous video.
  
  He can only argue with another presumptions.

Looking at that, I will argue that God is a mystery, that religions are human creation and that we can't know the personal mind of God nor can thoroughly understand universe and it's creation.

As Pascal have put it:

If there is a god, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
Pascal's Wager

In other words, we can not know God and his personal mind as long as we remain persons, which will render the presumption that God is giving the objective morals as false.

Some world philosophies have argued that human beings can cease to exist as personality, which should transcend the boundary between infinite God and limited human mind.

But that is another story which has to be discussed.

You definately have not understood Bible passages (or you just don't want to, preferring to take them out of their textual, linguistic, historic, cultural and political context), so I'm not sure how one is to debate those with you any further either.

Tell me how did I take any passage out of any context?

How does the context helps you with the problem of the light with out source.

The fundamentalist are jumping form the Genesis to Revelation and give cross references of passages that does not have anything to do with one another just to prove that the light can exist also with out light source.

What is the context when fundamentalist are doing such things?

Also by jumping from Genesis to Revelation they only indulge into a circular argument by using the Bible to prove the Bible! That is hardly any real argument!

One example Makedonin provides is the following:

This is ridiculous! Why? Because the Bible is not meant to classify animals according to modern biological categories. If it did so, how on earth would the people at the time understand what it was about?

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God. It yet has lack of objective knowledge.

Fundamentalists are selling the Bible as scientific book. They are those such as your self who point to the science and say "science is wrong in this and that, the bible says that God has created the world with out light source but than he divided the light in to day and night."

Bible has been posed as some kind of supernatural scientific knowledge.
It is used as measurement to bash science as invalid, so it deserves to be put under the same scientific scrutiny.

That is why it can't say that bats are not mammals but some kind of a bird. Omniscient all knowing God would have known to write this in a universal manner so that in all times it will be valid, yet he fails to do so and "restricts" it to the understanding of nomadic people, while he is asking us the modern people to use "church exegesis" to understand what is he talking about. That is of course absurd.

But let us say for the argument sake you are right about the passage above.

If really understanding was in question, than it could just say don't eat bats. But it goes on and uses classifications. Classification is a scientific method, thus when the Bible classify bats under birds and it previously was sold out as a scientific book, than it can only be found errant. That is really scientific, exactly as the fundamentalists science.

How about the grasshoppers having four legs and not six?

That wouldn't have been hard for any Israelite of the time to understand? Still the Bible gives errant account on how many legs this insects have!

Show me the context and explain me how the context changes this errant account?

Show me how the context changes when the bible sells the moon as source of light. Show me how the context changes the passage where the stars are falling on earth!

It is science and fundamentalists sell the Bible as scientific book knowing how the universe have been created, so it should also know what a source of light is or what is not!

No mercy there!

But using EXEGESIS we can understand what it means today by looking at it logically and within context.

Paul have told you that he is writing so that fools can understand him.
Exegesis is only a tool for the Modern man to cover the holes in indefensible.



Apart from the above said, here are you where you use Job 26:7 out of the context in your zealous attempt to defend the Biblical flat earth subscription:

It wasn't the Church that developed the theory of a flat earth or the sun revolving around the earth, it was the scientists of the day. In fact, Isaiah 40:21-22, refers to the 'circle of the earth' and Job 26:7 refers to the earth as being suspended over empty space.

If you were clever enough you would have practice what you preach and seen that it is Job that was talking, not God as shown in context:

And Job answereth and saith: -- ...Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,
Job 26:1,7

BUT if you have read further, you would have seen that God has actually refuted Jobs argument by saying:

Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. ...
“Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? ...
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail,[/B]
Job 38:1-4,12-13,22

In actuality the quote that you taken out of the context(the same context you accuse me of not including) shows that in your fundamentalist zeal to prove that the Bible has any scientific values is proving the opposite.

It is obvious that the Bible is flat earth subscribers, since you can take the earth on it's edge and shake off the wicked out of it Also the earth has foundation. Apart from the flat earth thing, you see many other pseudo scientific nonsense, such as store house of snow, hail etc. etc.

Tell me about the context and about how exegesis will tun the above into a scientific truth.

If you say that it is written only for the understanding of the nomadic people of Israel of the time, than why is Genesis to be taken literally exactly as you have proposed?

The rest of Makedonin's "examples" suffer from the same problem and that is why I have ignored them - because they are so mind-blowingly stupid!

You have ignored them because you can't really cover the holes and errors disposed.

Ad hominem fallacy won't help your case. Taking the time to counter the alleged "flawed" arguments may will.

In fact, debating this whole topic with you is like debating the Interim Accord with Buktop, Volk or the UMD. Its impossible when the other side is being intellectually dishonest or just does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the issues in front of them.

You are over simplistic, there is nothing mind boggling to understand about anything you say.

You escape in the over simplicity to avoid real arguments that will refute your position.

Ad hominem fallacy won't help your case.

but I highly doubt you can be intellectually honest in your response. You copied and pasted the following claim:

Ad hominem fallacy won't help your case.

The problem with this refutation is that it pretends we need to rely on "assumption" when we do not. We don't need to assume anything (I don't) and we can independently check whether it is reasonable to believe a biblical passage is 'true' or not by using various faculties.

That is flawed argument out of few reasons:

• It does assume that it is the word of God therefore it is argued that it contains no contradictions thus is inerrant.
• According to you, the Bible is truly interpreted only when it aligns with your interpretation.
  As soon as someone comes and argues that it does not say what you think it say, you are swinging the exegesis card. Paul have given his reason why no one needs exegesis, it is written for fools to understand.
• The assumption that the bible is inerrant and the inspired word of God comes from passages as this:
  

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
  2 Timothy 3:16

  were by All Scripture it is meant the Old and New Testament i.e. Christian Bible.
• The above passage that is wrongly interpreted that the Bible is God inspired fails short of convincing when reading Paul's own commentary:
  

  and to the married I announce -- not I, but the Lord -- let not a wife separate from a husband: ... And to the rest I speak -- not the Lord -- if any brother hath a wife unbelieving, and she is pleased to dwell with him, let him not send her away;
  1 Corinthians 7:10,12

  So Paul was not always giving the inspiration of God, but rather his own interpretation.
  

  That which I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this the confidence of boasting;
  2 Corinthians 11:17

  Here Paul admits that he is not speaking by inspiration, but by his foolishness.
  or Jeremiah accusation:
  

  At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings and officials of Judah, the bones of the priests and prophets, and the bones of the people of Jerusalem will be removed from their graves. ...
  Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons,
  and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?
  Jeremiah 8:1,7-9

  Jeremiah tells us that the law of the Jews (his own people) are flawed cause they were corrupted by the lying pen of the scribes.
  
  Conclusion would be that just because someone was “inspired” or "God-breathed" by something to write does not mean that that which caused the inspiration wrote it directly verbatim, but maybe by his own agenda and boasting or by the lying pen of the scribes.