Objective Moral Values

[Mikail]

Some people need to calm down and have a drink.

[Vangelovski]

There is no visible evidence thats true. But if you can't see something it does not mean it does not exist which would be also true.

Look..... logic says, to have a creation you need a creator. The universe did not happen by chance. This is Theology vs Science and i can't see why both can't be right on the same thing. Religion says God created the universe science says two attoms collided (or something like that). Now think of it this way, God grabbed these attoms and smashed them together and Presto! we have creation.

Seriously though, The bible only says what God did but does not give technical details how he did it. Where science tries to prove the technical side of things. I don't see Theology and science clash and they both can get along.

Bill77,

You're close to the mark. God has revealed to us what we need to know about Him and our salvation. Science is a legitimate approach to discovering His creation. At the end of the day, science is merely observation to help develop understanding. Everyone does it everyday.

[Vangelovski]

Some people need to calm down and have a drink.

I can't see anyone getting excited (apart from Makedonin). Does it automatically mean that people are arguing just because they are debating something? Or does that theory only exist in the Macedonian world, where you are "spitting" as soon as you voice an opinion (which happens to be anti-vassal)?

[Mikail]

Settle down be batko No one's pointing the finger at you. I think we understand one another well. No?

[Phoenix]

Why is human falibility enough to warrant a 'careful' approach to the evidence for God's existence? And what do you mean by 'careful'?

Intellectual dishonesty is to ignore known information or information that you could reasonably acquire. It does not include information that cannot be reasonably known or acquired by the individual. Falibility is taken into account.

TV, you argue the existence of a God with absolute certainty, the inherent fallibility of mankind ensures that error in this case is a possibility...

[iskra]

In my view it is the most logical....because none of us can know.Athiesm requires belief just as must as your faith requires you to believe....in my view that is illogical...to believe something without having any evidence of whether it is true or not.

TV, you argue the existence of a God with absolute certainty, the inherent fallibility of mankind ensures that error in this case is a possibility...

I don't know whether there is a god... I agree with both Louis and Phoenix. Anyway, when people in a society agree that something is very morally wrong they do in fact make it objectively wrong. They make acts that are considered very bad, objectively wrong through laws, the courts, the police etc. and these institutions mostly stand OBJECTIVELY outside each individual and will punish the individual that breaks the law...

[Vangelovski]

TV, you argue the existence of a God with absolute certainty, the inherent fallibility of mankind ensures that error in this case is a possibility...

Phoenix, have you looked at the evidence for yourself - I mean the full scope of the evidence available?

[Vangelovski]

A certain fool on this forum claimed "he" found a falsehood in the Bible in an attempt to demonstrates that it is not infalible. He was referring to Leviticus 11:20-23:

All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

The Bible in Leviticus 11:21 indicates that the hind jumping legs are not included in the four “walking” or “creeping” feet. The feet are the four front limbs used for walking and look the same. The back two limbs are primarily for long hops.

Although today, people lump them all together and say there are six legs, the Bible distinguished them here. The Bible referred to them in more detail than perhaps expected. Notice how the feet and legs are separated in the verses and referred to separately. The Bible is being very precise as to distinguish the front four from the back two. So, there is no contradiction at all: 4 walking legs + 2 hind hopping legs = 6 total legs.
[www.answersingenesis.org]

The fool made this mistake because he takes passages out of their textual, linguistic, historic, cultural and political context. In this particular instance, he failed to even read and understand the text itself. That is because he surfs cheap, shallow atheist websites that do not bother to take the time to research that which they attempt to discredit.

[Vangelovski]

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.

Here is another example of foolishness. The claim that God is contradicting Himself or His moral law.

This uninformed premise is based on a misunderstanding of JUSTICE.

Justice is one of God’s attributes and flows out of His holiness. We cannot begin to understand God’s justice unless we first understand sin. Sin is lawlessness and iniquity. It is everything contrary to God’s holy nature and is offensive to Him. Thus, sin is a crime against God and justice demands a penalty of death and separation from Him.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to wipe out entire nations. But we need to remember that God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. All people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defence of ourselves, our families, our nations, etc. When God authorised the Israelites to wipe out a people, it was a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God.

This also needs to be taken into larger historical context and God’s purpose. One of the reasons that He is so strong in the Old Testament and orders the killing of people is to ensure that the future messianic line would remain intact. The enemy, Satan, began his attempt to destroy God's people in the Garden of Eden, by also trying to corrupt the world (which led to Noah's Flood), by trying to destroy Israel with attacking armies, and by encouraging Israel to fall into idolatry by exposure to other cultures as well as intermarrying women from those cultures. The result of both the idolatry and the interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies that foretold of the coming Messiah which specified which family line the Messiah would come through. The Messiah, Jesus, would be the one who would die for the sins of the world and without that death there would be no atonement. Without the atonement, all people would be lost. So, God was ensuring the arrival of the Messiah through the destruction of the ungodly.

God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us and made salvation available to all who believe in Him. God’s own righteousness is provided as a gift to sinners who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and is based upon His grace and mercy in response to our faith. His mercy and grace are not in spite of His justice, but because of it. He loved us so much that despite the fact that our sin demands our death, He sent His Son to be our substitute upon the cross, thus demonstrating that His justice was not violated, but instead satisfied.

As for the future, the book of Revelation reveals the justice of God in all its glory during the end times. When the saints watch the destruction of the earth, their song will be of God’s righteous judgment upon the inhabitants for their ultimate sin of rejecting Him.

It would be a contradiction for God, who is Just, NOT to punish evil.

[Louis Riel]

There is no visible evidence thats true. But if you can't see something it does not mean it does not exist which would be also true.

Look..... logic says, to have a creation you need a creator. The universe did not happen by chance. This is Theology vs Science and i can't see why both can't be right on the same thing. Religion says God created the universe science says two attoms collided (or something like that). Now think of it this way, God grabbed these attoms and smashed them together and Presto! we have creation.

Seriously though, The bible only says what God did but does not give technical details how he did it. Where science tries to prove the technical side of things. I don't see Theology and science clash and they both can get along.

Bill,that is your belief,there is no evidence that God was playing marbles with atoms.

In my view....and this is just me,if there is a God,then science is the only way we can know that God.



Vangelovski

Phoenix, have you looked at the evidence for yourself - I mean the full scope of the evidence available?

What evidence?

Justice is one of God’s attributes and flows out of His holiness. We cannot begin to understand God’s justice unless we first understand sin. Sin is lawlessness and iniquity. It is everything contrary to God’s holy nature and is offensive to Him. Thus, sin is a crime against God and justice demands a penalty of death and separation from Him.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to wipe out entire nations. But we need to remember that God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. All people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defence of ourselves, our families, our nations, etc. When God authorised the Israelites to wipe out a people, it was a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God.

This also needs to be taken into larger historical context and God’s purpose. One of the reasons that He is so strong in the Old Testament and orders the killing of people is to ensure that the future messianic line would remain intact. The enemy, Satan, began his attempt to destroy God's people in the Garden of Eden, by also trying to corrupt the world (which led to Noah's Flood), by trying to destroy Israel with attacking armies, and by encouraging Israel to fall into idolatry by exposure to other cultures as well as intermarrying women from those cultures. The result of both the idolatry and the interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies that foretold of the coming Messiah which specified which family line the Messiah would come through. The Messiah, Jesus, would be the one who would die for the sins of the world and without that death there would be no atonement. Without the atonement, all people would be lost. So, God was ensuring the arrival of the Messiah through the destruction of the ungodly.

God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us and made salvation available to all who believe in Him. God’s own righteousness is provided as a gift to sinners who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and is based upon His grace and mercy in response to our faith. His mercy and grace are not in spite of His justice, but because of it. He loved us so much that despite the fact that our sin demands our death, He sent His Son to be our substitute upon the cross, thus demonstrating that His justice was not violated, but instead satisfied.

As for the future, the book of Revelation reveals the justice of God in all its glory during the end times. When the saints watch the destruction of the earth, their song will be of God’s righteous judgment upon the inhabitants for their ultimate sin of rejecting Him.

It would be a contradiction for God, who is Just, NOT to punish evil.

Where'd you find this bullshit at?These are the types of beliefs that lead people to commit all kinds of horrible acts...no different than the lunatics who shout "Kafir" and "Allahu Akbar" before lopping peoples heads off.

[iskra]

I like your practical honest approach Louis and I think your points are very pertinent...that sort of dogma can be very dangerous and often leads to many kinds of nasty behaviour...

[Louis Riel]

Thanks iskra.

If we follow that line of thinking cant we make the case that Jesus' crucifixtion was Gods just punishment?I mean if i look at it as a Jew.Or couldnt Greeks or Bulgars or Serbs make the case that Macedonians should be killed because they arent in communion with the other churches.

[makedonin]

This uninformed premise is based on a misunderstanding of JUSTICE.

Justice is one of God’s attributes and flows out of His holiness. We cannot begin to understand God’s justice unless we first understand sin. Sin is lawlessness and iniquity. It is everything contrary to God’s holy nature and is offensive to Him. Thus, sin is a crime against God and justice demands a penalty of death and separation from Him.

What a pathetic sermon, are we in the Church here? What you say does not prove anything at all!

It just postulates assumptions over assumptions with out any shred of evidence!
All I see here is misunderstanding of justice on your part. If justice has to do anything with objectivity it ain't gonna depend on a Subject, no matter how Great the subject is, in this case God.

Also you have to prove that what you say about Gods nature is so, and don't come to me with the Bible says so! The Bible says plenty of things that goes contrary to any justice.

About transgression, it is really simple:

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ....

For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 2:12; Romans 4:14-15

How can one sin apart from the law, when Paul tells us that with out law there is no transgression i.e. sin? Flat contradiction or a dead lock?

Tell me, why are those with out law perishing?

Also, if that ain't unjust, those who sin apart from the law just perish with out second chance, while those who sin under the law at least have a chance to be judged and maybe found not guilty!


Also God of the old testament have been leading people to sin against his commandments, which makes him subjective and not just.

The next day an evil[a] spirit from God came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand and he hurled it, saying to himself, “I’ll pin David to the wall.” But David eluded him twice.

1 Samuel 18:10-11

But an evil[a] spirit from the LORD came on Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand. While David was playing the lyre, 10 Saul tried to pin him to the wall with his spear, but David eluded him as Saul drove the spear into the wall. That night David made good his escape.
1 Samuel 19:9-10

God postulates "objective moral values" that he than bends as he pleases, exactly as shown in the Old Testament.

He says don't kill but only if I command. He says "to fuck your daughter in law is wrong, kill them both", but than obviously approves it when he needs a predecessors on his Messiahs part.

Examples are countless.

If that ain't subjective and unjust.

Obviously he does it cause he can, that much is true!

Where there is a power there is no justice, that is completely describing the God of the Bible.

I have shown time and again your complete incomprehension of EXEGESIS, which by the way is used for ALL written material.
That is not an 'ad hominen'. An 'ad hominen' is when I point out something that is irrelevant to the topic.

At this point I'm not sure if its your intellectual honesty that is the problem or your intellectual capacity!

First of all, you haven't shown nothing yet, not even slightly remotely so that you can claim to disprove me time and again.

It was rather demonstrated that you your self don't use exegesis nor any contextual referencing or any other tools you preach. You take passages out of context just to serve your fundamentalists agenda to pretend that the Bible has any scientific value or knowledge. It was also shown to you that in light of Paul's understanding exegesis are overrated since he tells his readers that he is writing so that even fools can understand him. Also the Bible is a book written for the masses, and I don't really think that the large masses have studied exegesis, thus your argument fails short of convincing.

Apart from that you have always used the "argument" of intelligence and tried to downplay my comprehension while not even bothering to engage my arguments. You have called them amateurish, laughable but you have not even pointed out why they are invalid out of your "exegesis comprehension" and you haven't even bothered to demonstrate that my arguments are in one way or other invalid, you have just skipped any given argument even though I repeatedly said "show me the context and show me how it does turn my argument invalid".

You just brush them away because you think I don't have the intellectual capacity, other way to call me dumb, but in the cowards way.

So here is a apologist web site that plainly shows what Ad hominem fallacy would be:

Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
1. Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
2. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation

Both examples are actually similar to that what you were doing all along. You attack my intelligence and comprehension rather referring to my arguments and refuting them.

That having been said, I am officially placing you on my ignore list. I find you not worthy and waste of time.

Babble your oversimplified and isolated "arguments" as much as you like, I don't really care, I will refrain from commenting to your non worthy responses.

[makedonin]

I just saw the Leviticus "response" by Vangel and have the honesty to say you are right unlike you in the misqouting of Job the flat earthist. I should have taken my time to look at it closely. What ever. Yet you Vangel have long list to disprove what I quoted, and you ain't gonna have that much luck as with this instance. As for you calling me fool is laughable, specially that coming from member of the "morons(Greek for fools) for Christ" gang.

I am waiting for your take on the rest specially flat earth, light with out source, the moon is a light source, the unjust predestination doctrine etc. etc.

[Michael]

Where'd you find this bullshit at?

Why is bullshit?

I like your practical honest approach Louis and I think your points are very pertinent...that sort of dogma can be very dangerous and often leads to many kinds of nasty behaviour...

Just because you prefer one approach over another doesn't make it true...