Objective Moral Values

[Vangelovski]

Michael


What should i snap into?

Thanks,ill do that.

Vangelovski

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

No attempt,that is what i was saying.

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

You're going around in circles and trying to cover territory that has already been covered.

There are other examples of killing and murder, those were basic ones to refute your previous comment, which claimed that there is no difference. Do you now recognise the difference?

Read turn the other cheek again - He's talking to individuals and telling them not to enact revenge. Only the proper authorities are to punish those that break the law, and in the case you brought up the authority was God himself. Look at the examples I've already provided about God's order to kill the Canaanites.

Hitler was a catholic? He didn't act like one? Maybe he was a paper catholic like you are a paper orthodox?

Where did you read that Jesus was killed for blasphemy?

As for the Babylonians, didn't I just say that one can discover objective moral values without biblical revelation - even atheists? The question is not how they discovered them, but what their source is.

[Louis Riel]

Vangelovski

You're going around in circles and trying to cover territory that has already been covered.

You havent given an honest answer yet.You said killing was lawful ie...an act of self defense,while murder was unlawful.I ask you again....is it self defense when you kill a defenseless child....answer that question and i wont bother you anymore.

There are other examples of killing and murder, those were basic ones to refute your previous comment, which claimed that there is no difference. Do you now recognise the difference?

I didnt claim there was no difference,dont put words in my mouth.I said to kill a child was murder...no matter how you rationalised it.Do you know the difference?

He's talking to individuals and telling them not to enact revenge.

Is that what he was saying?Or was he encouraging forgiveness?

Hitler was a catholic? He didn't act like one? Maybe he was a paper catholic like you are a paper orthodox?

I've never claimed to be orthodox.Was Hitler a good catholic?I dont know.Did he really believe?I dont know.Do any of you really believe?I dont know.He certainly thought God(i dont know which one)saved his life on more than one occassion.

Where did you read that Jesus was killed for blasphemy?

It was revealed to me.....can you believe that or am i just full of shit?

The question is not how they discovered them, but what their source is.

If the Babylonians had those values and they didnt believe in that God then where did they get them from?You claim God is the source,yet these people didnt believe in that God,neither did the ancient Chinese or Egytpians etc etc....so you tell me what the source is.

[makedonin]

Sorry Vangelovski, you ought to try harder. You fail of convincing about the light and escaping in to fables. Your avoidance of the flat earth problem is disappointing, and not to say that your acceptance that the moon is a source of light is not astonishing, not to speak about the storages of hail, rain and snow etc. etc.

I guess the flat earth is also a fable written for certain culture, but still creationists and fundamentalists are selling the Bible as top "scientific book". Not to speak that you claimed that the creation story was verbatim, just like the Israelites would have comprehended it. And yet you will continue jumping from verbatim to cultural fable understanding when ever you feel the need. With such method I can sell any fiction book for a hard science.

In other words, when it fits the fundamentalists like you, it is a fable and myth for certain audience, when it does not, than it is a hard fact science and therefore modern science must be wrong.
It is only typical fundamentalists and pathetic dodge.


As for the predestination doctrine:
I did not wanted to disprove God, but rather your claim that the Bible God concept is a just God, that is a big difference there, from what you claim was my intention and what I intended, and I already told this to your "mysterious supporter" Michael. (Where did you dug him out? Exactly as your Atanasovski supporter of the old times, just in time when you need one!) It only display your comprehension of what was written till now. Second, it is not weather I like it or not, I actually don't care. It was all over about justice, and that doctrine is injustice. But when you imply that I don't like the predestination doctrine that only means that you acknowledge that I understand the doctrine, thus I don't like it, which contradicts your babble about me not understanding it.

Second, you can downplay it's significance or my understanding, but Paul was writing for fools such as your self, nothing mind boggling there, no eloquence or wisdom or persuasive words there (1 Corinthians 2:1-5), so calling it stupid won't really help your case cause it is written for stupid like your self and you can't escape what it means. To choose the one above the other just because you can, even worst, to make the one for destruction and the other for eternal bliss, is not just unrighteousness but brutality of power show off. It just overrides the free will of a human, which is unjust and my initial point with that passage, since all those who go in heaven are chosen before the worlds creation (Ephesians 1:3-6). Nothing mind boggling there, but plain and simple for every fool to understand. Paul admits that it isn't a good God, merely a God that has lots of power! A God that owns us and can do as he wants, but not a moral or just God. (Romans 9:20-21) Thats how the Bible God is, unjust and full of his power.

You fail to give any convincing answer but simply claim knowledge and understanding which you haven't display.


So I have realized that I have to do with someone who gave up his healthy reason.

I will drop you direct evidence (call it red herring or what ever you will, it is fun for me to see you struggling) that the New Testament has a falsehood and errors in it, which than disproves any of the Christian claims of verbatim inerrant Bible :

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel,
Matthew 27:9

Matthew claims fulfillment of Jeremiahs non existent prophecy.

Till this day no Christian apologists have ever produced any passage from Jeremiah where this prophecy was made.

Instead this "prophecy" passages is written by Zechariah:

I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the LORD.
Zechariah 11:12-13

Is it glaring fallibility of a alleged supernatural entity that should have inspired Matthew?

Or is it the zealot Matthew misquoting Jeremiah when constructing the Christ life based on supposed old testament prophecies?

Knowing the zealots dishonesty such as your self, the second is highly probable!

It only demonstrates how reliable the zealot authors of the New Testament are! (I still prefer the sitting on the two donkey blunder above this one (Matthew 21:1-7).

You may chose from long history of many struggling minds such as yours , which will fit in your world to make your day work:

1. That "Matthew quoted from memory" (Augustine and others).
2. That the passage was originally in Jeremiah, but the Jews cut it out (Eusebius and others); though no evidence for this is produced.
3. That it was contained in another writing by Jeremiah, which is now lost (Origen and others).
4. That Jeremiah is put for the whole body of the prophets (Bishop Lightfoot and others), though no such words can be found in the other prophets.
5. That it was "a slip of the pen" on the part of Matthew (Dean Alford).
6. That the mistake was allowed by the Holy Spirit on purpose that we may not trouble ourselves as to who the writers were, but receive all prophecy as direct from God, Who spake by them (Bishop Wordsworth).
7. That some annotator wrote "Jeremiah" in the margin and it "crept" into the text (Smith's Bible Dictionary).

Gotta love the number six explanation. Looks like you are not alone Vangelovski. This really falls into the same category as:

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

Kiss your reasoning and logic good buy! You have done that Vangelovski, and still you claim to possess "logical thinking"!

I am sure that the sick zealot mind can come up with many more obscure explanations.

Still the alleged inerrant word is shown to be yet errant, cause by doing so Matthew proves only one thing, that he may have been errant on other parts as well, thus your inner evidence is gone.

Good luck with that flat error and contradiction, but somehow have the feeling that you can live with it with out problem at all.

[makedonin]

You havent given an honest answer yet.You said killing was lawful ie...an act of self defense,while murder was unlawful.I ask you again....is it self defense when you kill a defenseless child....answer that question and i wont bother you anymore.

You can wait for eternity to get a honest answer from him.

The child must have somehow offended the LORD in the womb, thus must be killed.

I am tipping on the middle finger gesture that cause the LORD to kill those children.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

The only thing I'm struggling with is understanding how someone can be so intellectually incapable. I have a friend who is currently doing a PhD on cognitive capacities and is particularly interested in people who overestimate their own intellectual capabilities. I have provided him with links to this and other threads that include your posts and he's keen on using your example, so there may be hope for you yet

Zechariah wrote/recorded a passage similar to what Matthew did, but there is evidence that what Zechariah was talking about is not Judas. However, what did Jeremiah do?

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel,
Matthew 27:9

Matthew never claimed Jeremiah wrote/recorded that prophecy, so why would you expect to find it in the Book of Jeremiah?

If any of what you claim to be a "contradiction" actually was a "contradiction" and if the Bible was not inspired and was just a human construction, don't you think they would have ironed out the problems by now? Do you think you're the first idiot to pick up on these supposed "contradictions"? The fact that it has remained UNCHANGED and that no theist or serious informed atheist have any problems with these "contradictions" should ring a few bells for you...

As for you ideas on predestination, that does not prove or disprove God's justice. If God exists, then He alone defines what is good and just. If on the other hand he does not, then it is subjective and I can disagree with you and we can both be right. You claims only create absurdities. But again, predestination is one theory, and you obviously have not bothered to look up molinism and post some irrelevant garbage about that.

[Vangelovski]

The 6th commandment is thou shalt not kill....what did Moses and the Levites do when he got down from that hill?

Do you understand the difference between killing and murder? We've been over it numerous times on this thread.

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

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.

If indeed you can understand the difference between murder and a justified kill, then you're not demonstrating it here. I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue anymore - that God is unjust? According to who? You? If God exists, then He determines what is just and good. As I've noted previously, and you have ignored, God has no obligation towards his creation. Rather, its the reverse. He has as much obligation towards us as I do towards a stick that I have carved into a toothpick. Rather, its the toothpick that was created for a purpose and the obligation lies with it. Just because a particular action does not sit well with you according to your subjective moral values and lack of information (such as future knowledge), that does not "prove" that God is unjust, it just shows that you don't like it.


Besides, shouldn't you as an agnostic be just as critical of atheist claims as you are of theist claims? Or are you just a coward who does not want to defend his own perverted position of subjective moral values, which lead to the absurdities that you claim you oppose. Perhaps that would be much clearer to you if you read this thread from the begining.

[makedonin]

Zechariah wrote/recorded a passage similar to what Matthew did, but there is evidence that what Zechariah was talking about is not Judas. However, what did Jeremiah do?
Matthew never claimed Jeremiah wrote/recorded that prophecy, so why would you expect to find it in the Book of Jeremiah?

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel,
Matthew 27:9

If any of what you claim to be a "contradiction" actually was a "contradiction" and if the Bible was not inspired and was just a human construction, don't you think they would have ironed out the problems by now? Do you think you're the first idiot to pick up on these supposed "contradictions"? The fact that it has remained UNCHANGED and that no theist or serious informed atheist have any problems with these "contradictions" should ring a few bells for you...

The apology you gave about Matthew misquote blunder (spoken v.s. written) has few problems, such as disregarding any previous apologetic attempts.

Your rhetoric about the fact that it remained UNCHANGED does not cover anything and won't erase the struggle of apologists who saw this as very troubling problem. And it is troubling problem for those who understand it, but not the simple tones and fools like your self.

I don't even want to say how stupid you come to sound when you say that there is a evidence that Zahariah meant something else, because almost the whole Christianity sees Zahariahs passages as the alleged prophecy fulfilled in Matthews quote.
By the way the discrepancy between Zahariahs contextual meaning and the Mathews alleged fulfillment are explained away with the so called "future context", which is actually used for all alleged prophecy fulfillments, cause all original passages are taken out of context.

The most obvious problem with your apology is that Matthew is setting off to inform the reader about alleged "prophecy fulfillment" found in Jeremiah, but according to this apology of yours he is referring to a "spoken prophecy" that no one can be able to verify. Matthew have been claiming "prophecy fulfillments" of all sorts, and all of them were written, so that the reader can verify them, and we are ought to believe here with your apology that he now somehow diverged from his known practice and instead of using Zahariah's written prophecy he resorted to Jeremiahs "spoken" one.

That is plain nonsense.

Another problem is the rhetoric how Matthew was introducing written prophecies, here is another Isaiah spoken prophecy which we find written in the Old Testament.

Here is the misquoted passage of Matthew in literal translation for comparison:

Then was fulfilled that spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, `And I took the thirty silverlings, the price of him who hath been priced, whom they of the sons of Israel did price,
Matthew 27:9

Now here is a literal translation of a alleged fulfilled prophecy quoted by Matthew and written by Isaiah:

that it might be fulfilled that was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying,
Matthew 4:14

Allegedly fulfilling Isaiah 9:1 which is well written in the Old Testament.

So your apology about spoken v.s. written prophecy fails to convince cause Matthews own rhetoric was to say that it was spoken through the prophet, even though he meant the written prophecies.

Here are few of those said or spoken through the prophets. (Matthews alleged prophecies fulfillment that were said through the prophet and still written. )

You see, zealots like you don't even know their own Bible.

When Matthew says it is said through the prophet he means also written. Thus my observation about misquoting stands firm as ever and won't change. Haven't changed for centuries after long struggle by apologists.

There are other problems with your apology but I don't have the interest of pointing the light to a blind person.

The only thing I'm struggling with is understanding how someone can be so intellectually incapable. I have a friend who is currently doing a PhD on cognitive capacities and is particularly interested in people who overestimate their own intellectual capabilities. I have provided him with links to this and other threads that include your posts and he's keen on using your example, so there may be hope for you yet

When I thought you reached your low of being pathetic.

Your friend may be better off with you and C.S.Lewis or other morons for Christ who believe that the judgment day is yet to come, but ignore Jesus and Paul about what they thought when the end day will come:

"Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

"Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side... The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance."

C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97

The above apology rules out only one thing, that is that Jesus is one with his Father. If Jesus was God, than how is God supposed to have secret from him self? That is absurd to think, other than we take that God is schizophrenic (trinity?) and somehow managed to hide his known fact about such crucial thing and deluded his men and led many to believe false.

How are we than to believe anything else Jesus said, when in the crucial point of his promises he failed? Plain nonsense. (I wonder if you consider to go on and disregard Lewis observation as failed, which will than cast serious doubt about other apologies written by Lewis, and I know you are firm supporter of him.)

That is not the only embarrassing passage in the Bible. (actually one can go on and quote whole day such passages concerning end times.)

Here is the most prominent book about judgment day but the morons for Christ are just ignoring what it say:

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
Revelation 1:1-3

Only kissing your reason good bye will make those words taking place 2000 years later.

Here is what the word soon and near means in normal human language, and this is exactly the language used above, no godly secret language:

O.E. sona "at once, immediately," from W.Gmc. *sæno (cf. O.Fris. son, O.S. sana, O.H.G. san, Goth. suns "soon"). Sense shifted early M.E. to "within a short time" through human nature (cf. anon).
Source

O.E. near "closer, nearer," comp. of neah, neh "nigh." Influenced by O.N. naer "near," it came to be used as a positive form mid-13c., and new comp. nearer developed 1500s (see nigh).
Source

So spare your friend the time and let your self examined by him. He might even help you, who knows you might come to your senses.

I gave up my hope that you actually can come to your senses.

And if we use the Biblical measurement on it's self:

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
Deut. 18: 21-22

Jesus and the author of Revelation have made prophecy about end days that did not come true, what are we to conclude? Read above!

Some have claimed that God have changed his mind about the end days and will come soon!

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”
1 Samuel 15:29

Well God won't change his mind, cause he ain't human.

So are we to trust those who are not to be trusted?

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.
Luke 16:10

Well not really. Falsus in uno falsus im omnibus! It is that simple.


We can't conclude anything else than that the Bible fails and is errant, because neither God can change his mind, nor God spoke through Jesus when he predicted the End Time and judgment day, and the Bible has been wrong in many not just one thing, so cant be trusted with true riches.



So now tell me about objective moral values that supposedly must come from the Bible, since the Bible must be the word of God!

C'mmon give me a break will ya?

[Louis Riel]

I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue anymore - that God is unjust?

Actually,by the end there...i just wanted to you to write,that yes,it is murder to kill a defenseless child.

According to who? You? If God exists, then He determines what is just and good

Thats the same rationale that Islamic extremists use...cant you see that?Sure...you think its bad when they strap on a bomb and blow up a bus full of people...but who are you?Are you God to judge what is just and good?

As I've noted previously, and you have ignored, God has no obligation towards his creation. Rather, its the reverse. He has as much obligation towards us as I do towards a stick that I have carved into a toothpick. Rather, its the toothpick that was created for a purpose and the obligation lies with it. Just because a particular action does not sit well with you according to your subjective moral values and lack of information (such as future knowledge), that does not "prove" that God is unjust, it just shows that you don't like it.

God has no obligation to his creation?Does a parent have an obligation to their child?

Besides, shouldn't you as an agnostic be just as critical of atheist claims as you are of theist claims?

If athiests made the same claims that some religious folks do,i would be just as critical.

[Bill77]

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but my head is spinning a bit.

There are a few here that don't believe there is a God. But yet blame him for many things. So is there or isn't there a God?

[George S.]

That's an excellent point BIll.we only know by the bible & what we can see in the universe.BUT have we seen him do we know who or what god is.Also other people are comfortable with their alternative gods & just being atheists.

[Louis Riel]

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but my head is spinning a bit.

There are a few here that don't believe there is a God. But yet blame him for many things. So is there or isn't there a God?

Who knows Bill....you find me someone who has any proof and ill show ya a bridge ive got for sale.

[Bill77]

Who knows Bill....you find me someone who has any proof and ill show ya a bridge ive got for sale.

Yeh....next time you watch Arsenal, and tell me Number 10 (Van Persie) doesn't walk on water lol

But seriously, with all this talk about God being cruel, God being unjust...... he must exist. He is just misunderstood (no thanks to religion)

[Louis Riel]

Yeh....next time you watch Arsenal, and tell me Number 10 (Van Persie) doesn't walk on water lol

He's good,but im faster.

[George S.]

I could be wtong here but creation is mean't to be the proof of existence of god.God is called the creator the everliving one.The being Or diety that has unlimted powers,is omnipresent.God never had a beiggining or end,has allways existed.Isn't it amazing who or what god is???
God is love,God operates with love.Man is made in the image of god.God created the heavens & the earth.The woman was created to look after the man,to bear him children % not to be alone.The word woman means she is made from the man.God took a rib out of the man & he made a woman.Wo(Out of) Man.

[makedonin]

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but my head is spinning a bit.

There are a few here that don't believe there is a God. But yet blame him for many things. So is there or isn't there a God?

It is not weather God exists but weather the Bible God concept as based on revelation is true and can be used as objective moral measurement.

Bible claims special knowledge, say to know the personal mind of God.

As eloquently put by Thomas Pain

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.
Thomas Paine

The bible contains glaring contradictions that testify human reduction and authorship which makes it unbelievable as verbatim word of God so it cant be used as objective morals measurement.