Objective Moral Values

[Michael]

Theyre not rejecting God/Gods....they simply had their own version,their own beliefs,that are no more right or wrong than yours....irregardless of what you believe.

Are you kidding me??

Michael....

So what youre saying is that we shouldnt question anything....right?Everything done in the name of God was just and we should just leave it at that.

Louis, that is not what im saying.. Ahhhh.. You have totally missed the point..

... ah ya yai...

[makedonin]

Lets suppose your version of the predestination doctrine is true, what follows? Well, it follows that God exists, the bible is true, your doctrine is true, you just dont like it!

First of all, it is not my version of predestination. It is Paul's predestination doctrine. It is in the Bible, it is not mine and I haven't written it there.

Second, what follows it that the Bible God concept can't be objectively just and moral God concept cause he has his choice made up!

That does not proves that the Bible God exists, but rather that the Bible God is a human concept, since humans love ego petting and love to be something special!

What is greater pleasure but to be chosen by God before the creation of the universe? Nothing, it is ego petting and vanity pure!

Can you understand that?

Further, not all christians subscribe to the doctrine of predestination.. There are other interpretations such as molinism.

So by saying that you just admit that there is more than one way to interpret the Bible, even among Christians!

So whose brand and version is the real one? Yours?

It is obvious that it is rather human creation since it ain't consistent and can be interpreted more than one way!

That is why we can speak about Biblical God concept. Simple as that!

[Louis Riel]

Do you understand the difference between killing and murder? We've been over it numerous times on this thread. Perhaps you should acquint yourself with what has already been written, rather than just coming in at the end and taking it from there.

It was murder....your Orwellian language wont change that.The people they killed were killed for their beliefs and or ethnic origin etc.

You're talking about the Bible - the Bible tells us who God is and what he wants from us - having your own versions of God means to reject him because rather than following His law, you are making up your own.

The bible was not written by God....it was written by men,it tells us what men want us to believe.

Do you know accept that justice without punishment is meaningless?

Turn the other cheek....what do you say to that?"Gods" words...not mine.

If you believe in Jesus then you do not face any punishment because he took it for you.

So,Hitler is i heaven and Gandhi lives in hell?I refuse to believe that.

He could destroy you in an instant, yet He went to the cross for you and you ask what good is that?

Jesus wasnt crucified for me....or you...sorry to break it to you,he was crucified for his words and beliefs.The Jews who sealed the deal had the same beliefs that many of you are sharing with us here in this thread.....that is why he was killed.

I think Michael was saying that you do not have all the information necessary to determine whether God's actions are just or not

How much info do i need?I mean a child is innocent...no matter what you believe and to kill that child because it belongs to a different group is wrong...no matter how you try to justify it.

Further, He determines what is just because He is justice and without him no such thing exists.

So no such thing as justice existed before these monotheistic faiths came along?What about the code of Hammurabi?

[Louis Riel]

Are you kidding me??

Why would i be kidding you?You think your beliefs are any more right than theirs?Are you kidding me?

[Michael]

What follows it that the Bible God concept can't be objectively just and moral God concept cause he has his choice made up!

That does not proves that the Bible God exists, but rather that the Bible God is a human concept, since humans love ego petting and love to be something special!

Can you understand that?

No, what would follow is that everything you are saying (your complex theology) is true and you just dont like it. Well thats just to bad..

So by saying that you just admit that there is more than one way to interpret the Bible, even among Christians!

So whose brand and version is the real one? Yours?

Makedonin, these doctrines are really for the inner-circle to discuss. But since you believe in your doctrine, take it up with your church, or your bible study group.. You will find that these types of doctrines are simply not central to christianity and that they can be interpreted in a number of ways and thats not a problem. We may not know until we get there. Keep on believing Makedonin!

[Michael]

Why would i be kidding you?You think your beliefs are any more right than theirs?Are you kidding me?

So you're a relativist?

[makedonin]

Trawl back over the hellenic religion thread where you idiocy was dealt with by not just me, but a few other posters as well. Pretending it never happened and then spamming this thread with the same stupidity is just...well, stupid!

New day new case, calling upon something that has been the other day does not make your case better.

By the way nothing like that have ever happened in that thread. It is your subjective judgment.

And by calling it stupid does not prove that your view is better. You have to rub your ass before you have proven anything.

Just because you subjectively believe you have not broken the commandments, that does not mean that you have not. It is only your opinion. That would not even work in a court of law, because a court uses objective moral values and does not determine your guilt or innocence based on your subjective moral values or even wether you knew what you did was illegal or not.

First Paul tells us that there can be a case where there is no 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 4:14-15

Paul tells us that there are those who live apart from the law

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.(Romans 2:12)

, so how are they going to sin if they live apart from the law and know no law and where the law is defining the transgression?


Well in human court of law surely.

However in reality there is not only the Christian God, there are many other Gods who make the same special plead. How are we to know who is the real one? Human courts are real and can be attested. We know them and we know that they are there.

How are we to know who is the Real God when there are so many special pleaders?

How about we take their special plead above yours.

Where do you come in that case?

I would say you will be in the position where you place me!

So it is becoming boring with you.

[Louis Riel]

So you're a relativist?

I dont know....am i?

I really think you guys should watch this debate.....it covers most of what we've been discussing...........
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs Turek 1 of 14

[makedonin]

No, what would follow is that everything you are saying (your complex theology) is true and you just dont like it. Well thats just to bad..

No proof there, you are grasping at straws. All it is proven that it is a concept.

Makedonin, these doctrines are really for the inner-circle to discuss. But since you believe in your doctrine, take it up with your church, or your bible study group.. You will find that these types of doctrines are simply not central to christianity and that they can be interpreted in a number of ways and thats not a problem. We may not know until we get there. Keep on believing Makedonin!

I don't believe in any doctrine, I just look upon the Biblical doctrine of predestination and compare it with the objective morals and conclude that they are mutually exclusive.

As for me believing. Well I believe that God who prefers intellectual dishonesty above intellectual honesty is a false God!.

[Michael]

I dont know....am i?

It appears so..
Seriously, have a read of the articles in the link below. You really should snap out of relativism asap or you wont be able to follow either side in this thread and you wont benefit from it..

https://www.carm.org/relativism

I really think you guys should watch this debate.....it covers most of what we've been discussing...........

I have seen debates with both of these guys before. Frank turek and Hitchens are both pretty crap.. Go straight to the top of the chain instead.. Watch a debate between William Lane Craig and Dawkins or something..

[Vangelovski]

It was murder....your Orwellian language wont change that.The people they killed were killed for their beliefs and or ethnic origin etc.

The bible was not written by God....it was written by men,it tells us what men want us to believe.

Turn the other cheek....what do you say to that?"Gods" words...not mine.

So,Hitler is i heaven and Gandhi lives in hell?I refuse to believe that.

Jesus wasnt crucified for me....or you...sorry to break it to you,he was crucified for his words and beliefs.The Jews who sealed the deal had the same beliefs that many of you are sharing with us here in this thread.....that is why he was killed.

How much info do i need?I mean a child is innocent...no matter what you believe and to kill that child because it belongs to a different group is wrong...no matter how you try to justify it.

So no such thing as justice existed before these monotheistic faiths came along?What about the code of Hammurabi?

So you cannot see the difference between murdering someone because of hate and killing someone in self-defence? Or is that just too 'Orwellian' for you?

In relation to the Bible, were you not attempting to say that the people that were killed in the Bible were killed 'unjustly'? Were you not trying to prove some 'contradiction' by claiming justice does not require punishment? Turn the other cheek - do you know what it means or do you just like picking up phrases here and there that, on face value, seem to fit your version of events? Turn the other cheek is Jesus telling people the vengence is wrong, not that evil should remain unpunished by the PROPER AUTHORITIES, in this case, God.

Was Hitler a Christian? As far as I know he was an atheist with certain pagan beliefs. Do you believe in hell? If so, how do you think one finds their way there?

Where do you get your information on with regard to the reasons Jesus was killed?

The children were not killed because they belonged to a different group. Arguing against an irrelevant premise does not demonstrate anything.

The Hammurabi code? Noone claimed that people are unable to discover objective moral values without Biblical revelation. The claim is that God is the source of objective moral values. This territory has been covered - its not like you just thought of it. Go back and read the whole thread.

[Vangelovski]

For anyone interested in more of Makedonin's garbage and his complete collapse in the face of logical argument. This is why he now throws logic and reason to the wind - if you pretend it does not exist, you don't need to accept the consequences of it...well, at least in your own mind:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=952&highlight=hellenic+religion&page=28

[Louis Riel]

Michael

You really should snap out of relativism asap or you wont be able to follow either side in this thread and you wont benefit from it..

What should i snap into?

Watch a debate between William Lane Craig and Dawkins or something..

Thanks,ill do that.

Vangelovski

So you cannot see the difference between murdering someone because of hate and killing someone in self-defence? Or is that just too 'Orwellian' for you?

I can tell the difference,can you?Is putting a child to the sword self defense?I dont think so.

In relation to the Bible, were you not attempting to say that the people that were killed in the Bible were killed 'unjustly'?

No attempt,that is what i was saying.

Were you not trying to prove some 'contradiction' by claiming justice does not require punishment?

Like i wrote before,i dont have to prove anything,the bible does that itself.

Turn the other cheek - do you know what it means or do you just like picking up phrases here and there that, on face value, seem to fit your version of events?Turn the other cheek is Jesus telling people the vengence is wrong, not that evil should remain unpunished by the PROPER AUTHORITIES, in this case, God.

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
I dont see anything about punishment there....but i guess you can interpret things whatever way you like.

Was Hitler a Christian? As far as I know he was an atheist with certain pagan beliefs. Do you believe in hell? If so, how do you think one finds their way there?

Hitler was a catholic.Do i believe in hell?A burning lake of fire?Yeah sure......i call it the sun.

Where do you get your information on with regard to the reasons Jesus was killed?

He was killed for blasphemy,that was the charge....look it up.

The children were not killed because they belonged to a different group. Arguing against an irrelevant premise does not demonstrate anything.

They were killed because someone thought they were doing Gods will.Can you give me one good reason to put a child to death?

The claim is that God is the source of objective moral values.

But the Babylonians didnt believe in that God....so how'd they come up with those values?

[makedonin]

For anyone interested in more of Makedonin's garbage and his complete collapse in the face of logical argument. This is why he now throws logic and reason to the wind - if you pretend it does not exist, you don't need to accept the consequences of it...well, at least in your own mind

I figured out you are pathetic as you pop out to be and that you will avoid any real debate and won't refer to any of the flat earth "scientific discoveries" of the bible such as "storehouses for snow, wind, hail etc." or "light with out light source", or the shameful unjust doctrine of predestination, which in no case were handled in the thread you repeatedly point out as reference to some subjective and imaginary success of yours, because you will have to be honest and admit the falsehood of those passage. Instead you perform your ad hominem fallacy dodge as usual, and are dishonest when pushed into the corner. You need aggressiveness management therapy dude.

So here is your line of circular reasoning:

“If the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.”
William Jennings Bryan

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine

"When the non-Christian scientist or philosopher begins to reason in the field of philosophy or theology, the very nature of the subject matter,dealing as it does with the ultimate causes of the universe, makes it impossible for him to reason correctly. The distortion brought about by the fall of man into sin completely blocks the intellectual channels of the non-Christian thinker and prevents him from reasoning correctly."
- Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of the Christian Faith, 1964, Harper and

Row, New York, page 14.

Here is my line of reasoning good expressed by Pain:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. ....

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention"
Thomas Paine

So I will give you the chance to get out of the mass with relatively unhurt ego and vanity, and won't ask you again to cover it, although you spit on me like six year old school boy who did not get his lollipop.


Sayonara you immature moron for Christ!

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

Out of the hundreds of nonsensical posts you spammed on here, which ones was I meant to refute? How does one refute a nonsensical argument when the other party refuses to recognise the fallacy of his own reasoning?

Did you say something about light without a light source in relation to God creating light before he created the sun? Are you for real? Why would an all-powerful and all-knowing God not be able create light without a sun? Why would He need to create a sun in order to have light? If He is God and He has created the entire universe with all of its complexity, surely he could also create light without a sun? But we could go further. In order to prove that the only source of light could be a sun, you would need to observe the entire universe. You make that assumption, based soley on our planetary experience, which in itself, is not an accurate assumption. Even humans are not reliant on a sun for light. Most of us know this because at some stage we have made a camp fire or turned on the light switch. You have not refuted anything, you have not demonstrated the Genesis account as false, all you have done is impose what you believe are the limitations of an all-powerfull and all-knowing God, which an absurdity in of itself. In addition to not being able to refute the account in Genesis, you are unable to positively prove the atheist view on the matter.

The rest of that rant about God being light and darkness having to be a part of God blah, blah, blah is just nonsensical and relates back to your inability to use exegesis. Again, it requires you using your brain, thinking about the textual, linguistic, historic, cultural and political context. These relate to the specific audience, the style of writing they would understanding, the metaphors and analogies used in that particular culture etc. You basically confused light as a physical property with light as a metaphor for God's goodness by mangling up unrelated passages and making a nonsensical statement about the creation of the physical universe based on a description of God's character.

On the topic of predestination - as was pointed out to you by Michael, that does not prove or disprove the existence of God. It just shows that you do not like it. Besides, that is one theory (which you don't really understand). Michael also pointed you to Molinism (which I doubt you will understand either). These are highly complex topics, copying and pasting random information while ignoring the thousands of works that have been written on the topic by atheists and theists and then claiming you have solved the issue is just mind-blowingly stupid.